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

Re: comments on Packaging and Configuration specification

From: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 00:41:49 +0100
Message-ID: <b21a10670903101641n4db22f09j51bae58f3442ebbf@mail.gmail.com>
To: Max Froumentin <maxfro@opera.com>
Cc: public-webapps@w3.org
Hi Max,
Thanks for the prompt reply. I think I have addressed all of your
concerns. For the sake of the LC process, can you give us a final
thumbs up that you are happy with the changes.

On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 4:22 PM, Max Froumentin <maxfro@opera.com> wrote:
> I'm ok with the resolution of all the comments I have not re-commented on below.
>
> Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com> writes:
>
>>>   "erroneous [DOM3Core] nodes"
>>> 9->  not sure what that means
>>
>> Changed [DOM3Core] nodes > DOM nodes. Better?
>
> Yes, although I would remove the whole sentence, actually. A "must" in a sentence that starts with "typically" is dangerous. And since it gives a preview of statements that come later in the document, it's in principle not necessary.
>

Ok, right. I've freed "ignore" from any evilness related to
"typically". It now sits happily on its own:

"During the processing of a configuration document, the specification
will state that a user agent ignore DOM nodes. This means that the
user agent must act as if those nodes were not present"

>>> "An author is a person who creates a widget resource or an authoring tool that generates widget resources."
>>> 12->  so if I use a tool to generate a widget, who's the author? Me or the author of the tool I used?
>>
>> The tool... or both... does it matter?
>
> It matters for the content of the <author> element, and for various normative statements that are about the behavior of the author  in the specification.
>
>>> 23->It's confusing that "inform" is in bold. Because we're not in a definitions section, it's not obvious that the paragraph defines what inform means. Couldn't it go in the definitions section, or rephrased to something like "informing means..."
>>
>> I see what you mean, but, as stated in the Definition section, lots of
>> definitions are given throughout the document. I would prefer to leave
>> this one as is.
>
> ok.
>
>>> "must not rely upon script"
>>> -> "rely" is a vague term, especially after a "must not", although I can't find a better wording.
>>
>> Changed it to "Authors using [SVG] as an icon format should create
>> icons that use declarative animation, and must not make icons
>> exclusively dependent on scripts for animation and interactivity." Not
>> sure if it any better?
>
> Yes, better for me. I can't find a better way to say it.

ok.

>> Author guidelines are just warning to authors
>
> ha! Not if you write statements as above, containing "must"s.

Ok. I changed all of them to not use conformance terms.

>>  your suggestion implies
>> that the author must treat it as an invalid archive (which is kinda
>> correct, but not really). The UA treating the widget as invalid
>> happens later in the doc.
>>> -> start file encoding is ISO8859-1? Think you can get away with it?
>>
>> The i18n WG said we should use it. Problem?
>
> No, they're the experts!

Agreed :)

-- 
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Tuesday, 10 March 2009 23:42:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:30 GMT