W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2009

RE: [widgets] P&C Last Call comments, viewmodes, referencing other specs, guarantee of consistency

From: Marcin Hanclik <Marcin.Hanclik@access-company.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 17:54:04 +0200
To: "marcosc@opera.com" <marcosc@opera.com>
CC: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <FAA1D89C5BAF1142A74AF116630A9F2C0A26ED90E0@OBEEX01.obe.access-company.com>
Hi Marcos,

>> I am not sure whether the item 3 is satisfied.
>What do you mean?
For example:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-widgets-20090528/#the-widget-element

"viewmodes
    A keyword list attribute that denotes the view modes supported the widget. The value SHOULD be one or more of the following valid view modes as defined in the [Widgets-Views] specification: application, floating, fullscreen, mini, or all. ..."

The question is: which spec is more normative here? P&C or non-existing Widgets-Views?
As a WUA vendor I would like to support all possible values.
As a widget developer I am interesting in knowing all the options I have.

>>P&C will be stable, and the other specs in the widget family will need
>>to adapt to it.
I take this as your personal guarantee.
I assume, though, that there is or could be some better process to make it reality.

>>Marcin, there is only a limited number of editors. We are doing the
>>best we can to pump out specs. But there is only so many hours in the
>>day.
I can help you. Shall I answer formally to:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0503.html


>>I'm going to assume "a" is "awesome" :)
I am sorry for this. My problem.

Marcin Hanclik
ACCESS Systems Germany GmbH
Tel: +49-208-8290-6452  |  Fax: +49-208-8290-6465
Mobile: +49-163-8290-646
E-Mail: marcin.hanclik@access-company.com

-----Original Message-----
From: marcosscaceres@gmail.com [mailto:marcosscaceres@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Marcos Caceres
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 5:38 PM
To: Marcin Hanclik
Cc: public-webapps
Subject: Re: [widgets] P&C Last Call comments, viewmodes, referencing other specs, guarantee of consistency

On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 4:51 PM, Marcin Hanclik
<Marcin.Hanclik@access-company.com> wrote:
> Hi Marcos, All,
>
>
>
> General comment to the below details:
>
> It is possible that some of the referenced specs will change considerably
> and may break some ideas from the current P&C.

P&C will be stable, and the other specs in the widget family will need
to adapt to it.

> As you know P&C is referenced by some other specs (e.g. BONDI).
>
> Could we somehow ensure the stability of the P&C references?

Only the ones in the Widget Family of Specs, but not others. However,
P&C does not reference many other working drafts in any significant
way.

> Below issues seem to only be symptoms of the problems we may have in the
> near future.
>
> It is not only about Views, I think.
>
> Formal view:
>
> http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010208/tr.html#last-call

>
> says:
>
> “Call announcement must:
>
> specify the deadline for review comments;
> identify known dependencies and solicit review from all dependent Working
> Groups;
> solicit public review. Consequently, a Last Call Working Draft must be a
> public document.”
>
> I am not sure whether the item 3 is satisfied.

What do you mean?

> MQE is marked as unpublished and we have (in my opinion) stability issues
> with the normative references.



> 1.       P&C on one hand specifies viewmodes in RelaxNG (non-normatively):
>
> attribute viewmodes {
>
>     list {
>
>       ( "application"
>
>       | "floating"
>
>       | "fullscreen"
>
>       | "mini"
>
>       | "all" )*
>
>     }
>
>   }?,
>
>
>
> and on the other hand P&C directs the reader to another spec
> (“Widgets-Views”) where the said modes are not specified.

Marcin, there is only a limited number of editors. We are doing the
best we can to pump out specs. But there is only so many hours in the
day.

>
> 2.       “Parts of this document reproduce text and behavior from the
> [HTML5] specification and from the XBL 2.0 specification (as permitted by
> both specifications by their copyright statements).”
>
>
>
> Questions for 1. And 2.:
>
> Does the spec have to reproduce the text from other specs?

No.

> Could we have one (maybe a “master”) definition of the terms, just for
> consistency reasons?

Maybe, but that is just more work. That is the reason I am editor of
all the specs, so I can keep consistency across all of them. So,
unless I die in a unforeseen accident, I think we should be ok.

> 3.      [Widgets-Views]
>
> Widgets 1.0: Media Query Extensions. A. Bersvendsen and M. Caceres.
> Unpublished editors' draft.
>
> Is this the correct reference in terms of the naming (views vs. MQE)?

It's ok for now... we will sort out that mess in the next few weeks.
It's really nothing to worry about.

> I think everything a

I'm going to assume "a" is "awesome" :)

--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au


________________________________________

Access Systems Germany GmbH
Essener Strasse 5  |  D-46047 Oberhausen
HRB 13548 Amtsgericht Duisburg
Geschaeftsfuehrer: Michel Piquemal, Tomonori Watanabe, Yusuke Kanda

www.access-company.com

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This e-mail and any attachments hereto may contain information that is privileged or confidential, and is intended for use only by the
individual or entity to which it is addressed. Any disclosure, copying or distribution of the information by anyone else is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this document in error, please notify us promptly by responding to this e-mail. Thank you.
Received on Wednesday, 3 June 2009 15:55:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:31 GMT