W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-fragment@w3.org > January 2010

Re: Feedback from FOMS

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 14:18:57 +1100
Message-ID: <2c0e02831001281918o70cf6934w59254747330aabd6@mail.gmail.com>
To: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
Cc: Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 10:42 AM, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 00:03:21 +0100, Silvia Pfeiffer
> <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 10:01 AM, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 23:53:28 +0100, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> OK, fair enough. I will try to not be distracted by the prose sections.
>>>> If
>>>> possible we should mark them with (Informative), I went with "Note: this
>>>> section is non-normative" only because I couldn't figure out how to do
>>>> (Informative).
>>>
>>> I tried again and actually something like <inform-div1> adds
>>> (Non-Normative)
>>> to the title. The problem is that the section is numbered as an appendix
>>> (C)
>>> and doesn't appear in the TOC.
>>
>> That may be overdoing it a bit, IMHO. :-)
>>
>> Don't you think it will be obvious what will be informative and what
>> will be normative?
>
> Section 3 looks purely informative (pages of just text), but just now I
> found this inside: "If such a user agent natively supports the media
> fragment syntax as specified in this document, it is deemed conformant to
> this specification for fragments and for the particular dimension." That
> really gets lost in the big mass of text, and I guess marking section 3 as
> non-normative was a mistake.
>
> But to answer your question, I'm not terribly worried that implementors or
> authors will think that the examples are the spec or something like that.
> Some strictness to what's what and readability could be improved though.
> That, and finishing section 4, would bring us a lot closer to something we
> can go to LC with.
>
> Unrelated, section 5.1.1 is pretty important and should probably be placed
> somewhere more prominently, not in "Interpreting and Processing Media
> Fragments".

Agree with all of this. It's what we need to work on towards the next F2F, IMHO.

Cheers,
Silvia.
Received on Friday, 29 January 2010 03:19:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 21 September 2011 12:13:37 GMT