W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-diselect-editors@w3.org > October to December 2005

McCathieNevile-5

From: Roland Merrick <roland_merrick@uk.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 15:45:00 +0000
To: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, public-diselect-editors@w3.org
Cc: w3c-di-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFC95D5390.71CF7EEE-ON802570D2.0055E22F-802570D2.005683BD@uk.ibm.com>
Greetings Charles, thanks for your comments on the content selection last 
call [1]. As part of this your fifth point states: 

<snip>5. Section 5.8 allows the author to control re-rendering, by 
suppressing the ability to recalculate what content should be included. 
This seems like a bad idea, since while it can be used to allow an author 
to force a user into a particular font size, window configuration, etc, I 
don't see any positive effects for it.
</snip> 

The DIWG assigned this comment the identifier McCathieNevile-5.

This mail documents DIWG's response to your comments.

DIWG Response
=============
We have declined this comment  . . . 
As the WG discussed this and a related one Gilman-10, we realised that 
there are a number of deficiencies in the reprocess feature. We have 
decided to remove the process element and the associated 
diselect-reprocess event.


[1] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-diselect-editors/2005AprJun/0010.html

Regards, Roland
Received on Friday, 9 December 2005 15:47:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:11:10 GMT