W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-appformats@w3.org > October 2006

Re: [XBL] Address Extensibility in XBL 2.0

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 09:21:13 +0900
Message-Id: <6068E8B3-F620-455B-80FC-3D0CE4DCEBB0@w3.org>
Cc: Dean Jackson <dino@w3.org>, public-appformats@w3.org
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>


Le 27 oct. 2006 à 06:31, Ian Hickson a écrit :

> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006, Karl Dubost wrote:
>> Le 26 oct. 2006 à 19:42, Dean Jackson a écrit :
>>> On 06/10/2006, at 9:06 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This is the only extension mechanism allowed. Other extensions  
>>>> would
>>>> make a UA non-conformant. Content that uses the mechanism described
>>>> above would be non-conformant. The only reason this is mentioned at
>>>> all is to avoid two implementations using the same attribute name
>>>> for that feature.
>>
>> I still think it is good to remind people in an Extension section.
>
> Ok, I've added an Extension Mechanisms section and removed the  
> mention of
> the 'vendor-binary=""' attribute.

Thanks satisfied.


>>> The WG agree with what Ian says above. Karl, could you please  
>>> respond
>>> to say whether you accept this or not?
>>
>> No traces here
>> http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/waf/issues
>
> The disposition of comments is at:
>    http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/xbl2/disposition-of- 
> comments

Thanks for the pointer.

That would be good if the WG could prepare an HTML version will help  
certainly during the transition call.
See for example http://www.w3.org/International/its/itstagset/lc- 
replies.html


>> And I have checked in the minutes of the last F2F (24, 25, 26) and  
>> I do not
>> see where it has been discussed by the WG.
>
> It was discussed here:
>
>    http://www.w3.org/2006/10/26-waf-minutes.html#item02
>
> But in my opinion such discussions are irrelevant as they were not  
> done in
> public, with open participation, and therefore should not be  
> considered
> part of the work surrounding the XBL2 specification.

Hmmmm…
Here there is a problem wider than this issue. I may have to report  
this at a higher level. It seems to be said, if I understood, that  
the WAF WG decisions are irrelevant.

> "Please let us know if this does or does not satisfy your comment."

For this specific issue, yes.


-- 
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager, QA Activity Lead
   QA Weblog - http://www.w3.org/QA/
      *** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Friday, 27 October 2006 00:21:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:50:05 UTC