W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-core@w3.org > January to March 2009

Re: [selectors-api] Selectors API I18N Review...

From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 15:57:18 +0100
Message-ID: <497DCF4E.1000201@lachy.id.au>
Cc: "Phillips, Addison" <addison@amazon.com>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>, "public-i18n-core@w3.org" <public-i18n-core@w3.org>

Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 22:46:42 +0100, Phillips, Addison <addison@amazon.com> wrote:
>> Please note that members of the WG also found two minor editorial 
>> issues [3]
> 
> [[[
> 3. Interoperability Considerations: "... such implementations could
> return different results from those that do support them" gives
> implementations too much leeway and applications too little
> information about why they're getting inconsistent results. The
> specification should require one of these behaviors:
> - if a selector is used that is not supported by the implementation,
> the implementation must return null (for querySelector) or an empty
> list (for querySelectorAll).
> - if a selector is used that is not supported by the implementation,
> the implementation must raise an exception.
> ]]]
> 
>> [3] 
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-i18n-core/2008Dec/0006.html

I have revised the Interoperability Consideration section to more 
accurately reflect the result of different levels of Selector support 
and offer advice for dealing with it.

http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/selectors-api/#interoperability

Please let me know if you are satisfied with this repsonse.

-- 
Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software
http://lachy.id.au/
http://www.opera.com/
Received on Monday, 26 January 2009 14:57:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 26 January 2009 14:57:59 GMT