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

Re: [widgets] P&C Last Call comments, interoperability

From: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 13:29:21 +0200
Message-ID: <b21a10670906160429l1fddb805vfc2f522b5c4dd9dd@mail.gmail.com>
To: Marcin Hanclik <Marcin.Hanclik@access-company.com>
Cc: "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
Hi Marcin,

(Sorry, process dictates that I have to keep sending these for each of
your emails:( )

For the sake of the disposition of comments, can you please
acknowledge that you are satisfied with the responses of the working
group in this email thread. A response from you is required for us to
progress the document to CR.  If we don't receive a response by the
21st of June, we will assume you have accepted the comments and no
further action is needed. If further action or clarification is needed
on your part, then please let us know ASAP.

Kind regards,
Marcos

On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Robin Berjon<robin@berjon.com> wrote:
> On Jun 2, 2009, at 12:18 , Marcin Hanclik wrote:
>>
>> I understand that the implementations may have arbitrary path lengths.
>> But to ensure the interoperability from the very beginning, some
>> reasonable limit could be put already.
>> E.g. 1024 bytes for the maximum path length.
>
> We've been there and done that, and it's a bad idea. It means that content
> that is perfectly fine and works everywhere  is classified as invalid. And
> in practice no one cares about such limitations anyway — specifications
> shouldn't try to define conformance beyond what implementers are likely to
> do, it's just a waste of good pixels.
>
> --
> Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
>    Feel like hiring me? Go to http://robineko.com/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



-- 
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Tuesday, 16 June 2009 11:30:19 GMT

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