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

Re: comments on Packaging and Configuration specification

From: Max Froumentin <maxfro@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 10:58:59 +0100
To: marcosc@opera.com
Cc: public-webapps@w3.org
Message-ID: <m2vdqgqt24.fsf@pc214.sm.oslo.opera.com>
I hereby formally rejoice in the disposition in my comments.

Max.

Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com> writes:

> 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 :)
Received on Wednesday, 11 March 2009 09:59:40 GMT

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