W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2009

Re: Request for Comments: Last Call WD of Widgets 1.0: Packaging & Configuration spec; deadline 31 Jan 2009

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2009 17:20:36 -0500
Message-ID: <4967CDB4.8050306@mit.edu>
To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
CC: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>

A few comments:

1)  In section 7.3, boolean attributes are defined to use 
case-insensitive matching.  Why is that?  There doesn't seem to be a 
definition of case-insensitive here, which worries me, since 
case-folding is always tricky business (see below).  I would suggest 
requiring a case-sensitive match to "true" or "false" here.

2)  Section 8.2, step 2, second list, item 8 has a similar issue for 
filenames.  For example, consider the following pairs of filenames:

  a) "i" and "I"
  b) "i" and "ı"
  c) "i" and "İ"
  d) "ı" and "I"
  e) "ı" and "İ"
  f) "I" and "İ"

Here 'i' is U+0069, 'I' is U+0049, 'ı' is U+0131 and 'İ' is U+0130.

Which of these pairs should be considered to "upon normalization, case 
insensitively match"?  Seems like (a) should, (c) should, (d) should, 
right?  But (b) and (e), and (f) maybe should not?  That means the 
matching relation is non-transitive, of course.  Or should these all 
match?  Or something else?

I'm not sure what the reason for this case-insensitive check is exactly; 
if there's a strong reason for it it needs to be defined.  Otherwise it 
needs to be removed.

3)  When parsing a non-negative integer (Section 8.2, step 8), what's 
the expected behavior for integers larger than 2^32?  2^64?  Are 
implementations of this specification required to do integer arithmetic 
on arbitrarily large integers?  If not, is the behavior just 

4)  Section 8.2, step 8, it would be good to make sure that the image 
identification table matches the one in HTML5 (possibly by having both 
specifications refer to a single table, if that's workable).

5)  Section 8.2, step 8, I'm not sure why image/svg+xml is required to 
be processed according to SVGTiny.  This means that an SVG 1.1 or SVG 
1.2 Full (whenever that happens) user-agent cannot implement this 
specification, as far as I can see.

6)  Section 6.2 talks about using file extensions followed by 
content-type sniffing to determine MIME types.  This sounds to me like 
the exact process is up to the UA.  Then Section 8.2, step 8, has 
specific lists of extensions and magic numbers that UAs need to 
recognize.  Is the sniffing allowed in Section 6.2 required to be a 
superset of what Section 8.2 allows?  If so, this should be made 
clearer.  If more sniffing is allowed than what's listed in 8.2, this 
can lead to security problems where two UAs (say a security checker and 
a web browser) treat the same file in a widget as having different 
types.  This is the sort of situation that HTML5 is trying very hard to 
avoid with its sniffing algorithm.  I feel that all sniffing that UAs 
are allowed to perform must be explicitly listed in the specification. 
If that means that not all files can have MIME types deduced, then an 
alternate mechanism needs to be provided to indicate MIME types for files.

7)  It's not clear to me why Section 5.3 allows encoding of filenames 
using [CP437].  Why not just require UTF-8?

8)  The algorithm for getting text content in Section 8.2, step 2 
doesn't look correct to me.  For example, consider an input element 
whose XML serialization looks like this:

   <outer><inner1>First</inner1> <inner2>Second</inner2></outer>

The text content of this input, according to the spec's algorithm, is 
the the string "FirstSecond".  I would expect to get "First Second" as 
the text content in this case.  Is there a reason to not just use 
textContent here?  Note that even the example in the specification gets 
this wrong.  There the markup is:

      The <blink>Awesome</blink>
      <author email="dude@example.com">Super <blink>Dude</blink></author>

for which this algorithm gives "The AwesomeSuper Dude     Widget" and 
not what the spec claims (I have also removed the carriage returns for 

In the same algorithm, there's mention of "the input's text nodes". 
This relationship is not defined in this specification or elsewhere.  I 
assume you mean the text nodes which have input as their ancestor, right?

In the same algorithm, rule 4 doesn't make sense to me.  What's 
"position"?  Is it a character, or an index?  Or something else?  If you 
mean to say that input's nodeValue is to be appended to result, just say 

In the informative section following this algorithm, there is mention of 
  "getTextContent() DOM3 Java interface", whatever that is.  I'm not 
sure why we need to drag Java into this.  If we want to say something 
about the node's DOM3 textContent property, we should just say that, in 
my opinion.  There's no language binding involved here; the property is 
defined in the relevant IDL and its definition is language-agnostic.

9) In the "Rules for Removing Whitespace" section in Section 8.2, Step 2 
have the following language:

    While position doesn't point past the end of input and the
    character at position is not one of the space characters,
    append character to the end of result and let position become
    the character in input.

Here "character" is a Unicode character the first and second time it's 
mentioned, and seems to be an integer the third time?  Or something?  If 
you're trying to say that the position should move to the next character 
in input, say that, please.

10) Is there a reason to not have any JPEG images in the Image 
Identification Table in Section 8.2, Step 2?  I would have thought 
widgets might wish to include such images.

Received on Friday, 9 January 2009 22:21:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:13 UTC