W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapi@w3.org > February 2008

Re: ElementTraversal comments

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 20:42:40 +0000 (UTC)
To: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, "Web API WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0802262030430.6407@hixie.dreamhostps.com>

On Tue, 26 Feb 2008, Doug Schepers wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > * I don't understand "A User Agent may implement similar 
> > > > interfaces in other specifications, but such implementation is not 
> > > > required for conformance to this specification, if the User Agent 
> > > > is designed for a minimal code footprint." I suggest dropping this 
> > > > sentence.
> > > 
> > > That's an odd request.  A better suggestion might be to clarify the 
> > > sentence, since I wouldn't have put it in if I didn't think the 
> > > point needed to be made.
> > > 
> > > Most of the functionality of this spec is an optimized subset of 
> > > DOM2 Traversal & Range, and it is intended that a UA could implement 
> > > both by aliasing; however, this isn't required for conformance to 
> > > this specification.  I hope that clarifies it for you.
> > 
> > It's not a subset at all. Clarification is ok too, but I think the 
> > sentence is a distraction.
> It can be implemented as a subset of functionality.  If others agree 
> with you, I will rework of remove the sentence in question, though.

For what it's worth I didn't understand the sentence either, before you 
explained it. Even now, it sort of reads as saying that if you're not a 
"minimal code footprint" UA (who isn'?), you are not allowed to implement 
other similar specs. Or possibly, you are required to implement them, it's 
not clear. It certainly seems like confusing use of RFC2119 terminology.

> Ok, I'll consider something like that.

Incidentally, from one fellow spec writer to another, in particular one 
who has to deal with an ungodly amount of feedback :-), I would recommend 
replying to each e-mail _after_ having made all the changes that you plan 
to do in reply to the e-mail, rather than before -- that way, you have a 
clear way of telling how much feedback you have left, and the commentors 
have a clear way of knowing when to look at the spec to see if they are 
happy with the new text. Just a suggestion, take it or leave it as you 
wish, I just find it helps. :-)

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 26 February 2008 20:42:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:25 UTC