W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-intents@w3.org > June 2012

Re: problem sentences in draft

From: Jean-Claude Dufourd <jean-claude.dufourd@telecom-paristech.fr>
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 19:05:58 +0200
Message-ID: <4FCF8DF6.2090202@telecom-paristech.fr>
To: Greg Billock <gbillock@google.com>
CC: "public-web-intents@w3.org" <public-web-intents@w3.org>
How about:
The UA must not constrain allowable names for intent types to be in a 
finite, enumerated set.
Your proposed test is not a full test of that line, but a strong hint.
Best regards
JC

On 6/6/12 18:41 , Greg Billock wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 6:22 AM, Jean-Claude Dufourd
> <jean-claude.dufourd@telecom-paristech.fr>  wrote:
>> In section 4:
>> "The User Agent must not categorically prohibit dispatch of unknown intent
>> types."
>>
>> The double negative means the UA must do something, but the spec does not
>> say what.
>> This sentence needs to be removed or changed.
>> Possibly to something like:
>> "The User Agent may choose to dispatch unknown intent types based on
>> information not contained in this specification."
> I want to say something much stronger than this, though -- I want to
> require that UAs not close the action namespace. On the other hand,
> there is reason to allow the UA to potentially block dispatch of
> particular intent types for reasons that aren't obvious now. So I'm
> trying to be careful in saying that.
>
> I do think this is testable: create a random string, use it as the
> intent action, and see if the UA dispatches on it. If it does, that is
> really strong evidence that this spec requirement is met.
>
> Suggestions of a better way to say this, or disagreements about
> whether that's the right thing to say, are welcome. :-)
>
>
>> By the way, the word "categorically" adds an ambiguity: the UA must not
>> categorically prohibit, but is it OK for the UA to (simply) prohibit ?
>
>
>> Also in section 4:
>>
>> " The User Agent must not allow web pages the ability to discover passively
>> which services ..."
>>
>> What it the meaning of "passively" in this context ?
>> This should be unambiguously explained IN the spec (not to me).
>>
>> Best regards
>> JC
>>
>> --
>> JC Dufourd
>> Directeur d'Etudes/Professor
>> Groupe Multimedia/Multimedia Group
>> Traitement du Signal et Images/Signal and Image Processing
>> Telecom ParisTech, 37-39 rue Dareau, 75014 Paris, France
>> Tel: +33145817733 - Mob: +33677843843 - Fax: +33145817144


-- 
JC Dufourd
Directeur d'Etudes/Professor
Groupe Multimedia/Multimedia Group
Traitement du Signal et Images/Signal and Image Processing
Telecom ParisTech, 37-39 rue Dareau, 75014 Paris, France
Tel: +33145817733 - Mob: +33677843843 - Fax: +33145817144
Received on Wednesday, 6 June 2012 17:06:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 6 June 2012 17:06:32 GMT