W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapi@w3.org > February 2007

Re: Progress event spec

From: Jean-Claude Dufourd <jean-claude.dufourd@streamezzo.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2007 21:59:20 +0100
Message-ID: <45C79AA8.2050500@streamezzo.com>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
CC: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, Web API public <public-webapi@w3.org>
Dear Ian,

Such an extreme message does not help the discussion.
Besides, in the paragraph 2 of the section you quote, I read: "All 
chapters are normative except for specific sections marked as being 
informative. "
The sentence I quoted was in an unmarked, hence normative paragraph.
At best, there is a contradiction in the SVG spec. But it is *not* as 
clear as you both pretend.

Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, Jean-Claude Dufourd wrote:
>> Well, whatever you think, it is normative text. And it does not say 
>> anything about error.
> No, it's not. The SVG spec clearly states what is normative (see SVG Tiny 
> 1.2 appendix D section 2 paragraph 1). The issue of the SVG 1.2 Tiny spec 
> not clearly stating what was normative or not was one of the many issues 
> raised in the last few last calls (see e.g. SVGT12-163). The SVG working 
> group stated they had resolved these issues by updating "the entire 
> specification to ensure properly worded conformance criterias".
> By the working group's own assertion, therefore, the sentence you cited is 
> not normative. Bjoern's point stands.
Received on Monday, 5 February 2007 20:59:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:23 UTC