W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2008

Re: Call for Consensus - Selectors Last Call

From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2008 15:05:37 +1100
To: public-webapps@w3.org
Message-ID: <20081101040537.GH12914@arc.mcc.id.au>

Charles McCathieNevile:
> So this is a call for Consensus to publish the Editor's Draft [1] of the  
> Selectors API spec as a Last Call. Please respond before Monday November  
> 10. As always, silence is taken as assent but an explicit response is  
> preferred.

I’m in favour of publishing.

A few comments though (since this consensus call prompted me to look at
it), mostly editorial, before the LC period begins:

  * In the first sentence of section 6, I’d do /either/any of/, since there
    are more than two interfaces listed.

  * There’s a newer Web IDL WD available than the one referenced (with
    the new name) so it might be good to reference that.  Then you can
    use [WEBIDL] as the reference link text instead.

  * In section 6, I don’t think it’s necessary to explicitly mention
    undefined, since it’s already handled by the annotation in the IDL.
    If you do want to include this in the prose, I think it needs to be
    qualified to say that this applies to an ECMAScript language binding
    of the interface.  (null’s OK, since you can talk about null at the
    level of IDL values so it’s applicable to any language.)

  * s/an an asterisk/an asterisk/ in section 6.1.

Thanks,

Cameorn

-- 
Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/
Received on Saturday, 1 November 2008 04:06:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:28 GMT