W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ppl@w3.org > February 2013

Re: New Year. Renewed activity? New Chair?

From: Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom2@eastlink.ca>
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2013 07:08:14 -0400
Message-id: <51162E1E.4010409@eastlink.ca>
To: public-ppl@w3.org
I agree with Dave. We've got the 2.0 WD, and we've proposed a number of 
things related to formatter feedback. There are and will be thoughts on 
how to act on that feedback.

A reasonable first step seems to me to be, asking some general questions 
before tackling specific nice-to-have feedback examples, e.g.:

1.  Do we go for a G.P. feedback + action API or tackle specific use 
cases individually?

2. In latter case most reasonable approach is probably changes to FO XML 
itself; in former (G.P.) case can be accommodated in a variety of ways, 
including:

a. programming hooks - formatting feedback API that specifies how to 
hook into running formatter (registering listeners on known events, etc 
etc), how to program instructions to running formatter, etc;

b. Changes to FO - i.e. FO tree after XSLT step contains instructions to 
the formatter, for acting on specific feedback. So this is the same as 
if deciding to focus on individual use cases.

I like the idea of considering both approaches; 2a) more flexible but 
requires more work. 2b) could handle some of the most desirable use 
cases in a short time frame, leaving 2a) to handle the broader scope of 
formatter feedback + actions.

Arved

On 02/09/2013 06:01 AM, Dave Pawson wrote:
> On 9 February 2013 09:47, Tony Graham <tgraham@mentea.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, February 9, 2013 7:47 am, Dave Pawson wrote:
>>> I've added a new page to the wiki
>>>
>>> http://www.w3.org/community/ppl/wiki/New_Work_Items
>> Do you mean potential or actual work items?
> It is 'new' simply because it is development from 1.1?
> Nothing more Tony.
> Please change the title if it offends or is incorrect?
>
>
>
>> If we are working on formatter feedback, what are we actually producing?
>> Software?  Requirements?  A CG Note?
> Specify the itch, then look how it might be scratched?
> Acknowledge the problem (already done)
> The requirement exists.
> Look at candidate addition to the WD in this area?
> That would be my suggestion.
>
>
> regards
>
>
>
Received on Saturday, 9 February 2013 11:08:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 9 February 2013 11:08:42 GMT