W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-diselect-editors@w3.org > October to December 2006

Re: Gilman-10

From: Al Gilman <Alfred.S.Gilman@IEEE.org>
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 23:36:11 -0500
Message-Id: <p06110428c1770f30f8e3@[69.143.137.56]>
To: public-diselect-editors@w3.org

Works for me.

Disposition accepted.

Al

At 2:05 PM +0000 11/28/05, Roland Merrick wrote:
>Greetings Al, thanks for your comments on the content selection last 
>call [1]. As part of this you include "process=once" which states:
>
><snip>When the DISelect processing is being performed client-side, 
>this would appear to bar the user from obtaining some adjustments to 
>the user experience that they would otherwise be able to reach by 
>adjusting preferences and re-processing.  What is the motivation for 
>this option?  Is it for efficiency when the author is confident that 
>re-evaluation will yield the same result?  If so, why not state the 
>clause in terms of "if process=once then the processor MAY, when the 
>document is reprocessed, retain the old value established the first 
>time processed and not re-evaluate the expressions in the scope of 
>this [directive]."  Then the client-side processor will be sure not 
>to be functionally impaired by the semantics of this feature.</snip>
>
>The DIWG assigned this comment the identifier Gilman-10.
>
>This mail documents DIWG's response to your comments.
>
>DIWG Response
>=============
>
>As the WG discussed this and a related one McCathieNevile-5, we 
>realised that there are a number of deficiencies in the reprocess 
>feature. We have decded to remove the process element and the 
>associated diselect-reprocess event.
>
>[1] 
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-diselect-editors/2005AprJun/0012.html
>
>Regards, Roland
Received on Wednesday, 8 November 2006 04:36:19 GMT

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