W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-perf@w3.org > February 2012

RE: [PageVisibility] Spec review

From: Jatinder Mann <jmann@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 00:00:58 +0000
To: Sigbjørn Vik <sigbjorn@opera.com>, "public-web-perf@w3.org" <public-web-perf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <EE4C13A1D11CFA49A58343DE361B0B041370A3FA@TK5EX14MBXC252.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Thanks for taking the time to review the spec.

> Other specs only say "The X attribute", not "The X IDL attribute". Should we simplify this spec?
Being more specific in a specification is only a good thing. Besides, HTML5 spec also uses similar terminology.

> Vendor prefixes uses different wording than other specs.
I have updated the Page Visibility Section 4.4 Vendor Prefixes to be more in line with the Vendor Prefix sections for the other Timing specifications.

> The sentence "To accommodate accessibility ..." is repeated three times, this could presumably be simplified or rewritten somewhat.
To make sure the spec was clear, I tried to ensure each return value had all use cases specified. 

Thanks,
Jatinder

-----Original Message-----
From: Sigbjørn Vik [mailto:sigbjorn@opera.com] 
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2011 12:31 AM
To: public-web-perf@w3.org
Subject: [PageVisibility] Spec review

Only a few suggested wording improvements.

Other specs only say "The X attribute", not "The X IDL attribute". Should we simplify this spec?

Vendor prefixes uses different wording than other specs.

The sentence "To accommodate accessibility ..." is repeated three times, this could presumably be simplified or rewritten somewhat.

--
Sigbjørn Vik
Core Quality Services
Opera Software
Received on Friday, 3 February 2012 00:03:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 3 February 2012 00:03:03 GMT