- From: Max Froumentin <maxfro@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 10:58:59 +0100
- To: marcosc@opera.com
- Cc: public-webapps@w3.org
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 UTC