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

Re: Call for Consensus - Selectors Last Call

From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2008 08:36:20 +0100
Message-ID: <490C06F4.8000406@lachy.id.au>
To: public-webapps@w3.org

Cameron McCormack wrote:
>   * 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.

This will happen as soon as Bert updates the bibliographic database for 
the spec generator.  I've emailed him to let him know.

>   * 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.)

I don't see why this is a problem.  Technically both null and undefined 
are handled by the IDL, but stating it implicitly in the prose makes it 
clearer.   I haven't made this change yet, because I want to avoid 
making non-editorial changes at this stage. But feel free to convince me 
during this next LC period.

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


Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software
Received on Saturday, 1 November 2008 07:37:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:12 UTC