W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ddwg@w3.org > February 2008

RE: Final chance, for now, to offer opinion on Simple API [was Continuation of discussion from today's call]

From: Rotan Hanrahan <rotan.hanrahan@mobileaware.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 06:49:00 -0500
Message-ID: <D5306DC72D165F488F56A9E43F2045D3017E2D2D@FTO.mobileaware.com>
To: <public-ddwg@w3.org>

Res.C(2) : For clarity, I would like it in addition. This would be
consistent with the provision of overloaded methods that only have
strings and would be used conveniently in some simple use cases.

---R

-----Original Message-----
From: public-ddwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ddwg-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Jo Rabin
Sent: 26 February 2008 10:45
To: jmcf@tid.es
Cc: public-ddwg@w3.org
Subject: RE: Final chance, for now, to offer opinion on Simple API [was
Continuation of discussion from today's call]


I see that both Rotan and you are looking for and elaboration of
Resolution C(2):

Res.C(2) +1 to keep PropertyName, factory method, and use in
SimplePropertyRef constructor.

For the sake of clarity, are you saying that the only constructor should
be of this form or are you saying that you'd like that in addition. The
first interpretation is inconsistent with the decision to provide
overloaded methods that have only Strings.



[...]
Received on Tuesday, 26 February 2008 11:49:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 12:13:53 GMT