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

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

From: Marcin Hanclik <Marcin.Hanclik@access-company.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 13:36:12 +0200
To: "marcosc@opera.com" <marcosc@opera.com>
CC: "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <FAA1D89C5BAF1142A74AF116630A9F2C2890AF799B@OBEEX01.obe.access-company.com>
Hi Marcos,

I can live with the current version and scope of the spec with regards to interoperability.

>>(Sorry, process dictates that I have to keep sending these for each of
>>your emails:( )
Could we agree that I will send my confirmations to all my P&C LC emails we exchanged and with which I am ok by this Thursday, 18.06?

Thanks.

Kind regards,
Marcin

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: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 1:29 PM
To: Marcin Hanclik
Cc: public-webapps@w3.org
Subject: Re: [widgets] P&C Last Call comments, interoperability

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


________________________________________

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 Tuesday, 16 June 2009 11:37:17 GMT

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