- From: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
- Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2009 18:55:38 +0200
- To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Cc: ext Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 4:07 PM, Arthur Barstow<art.barstow@nokia.com> wrote: > On Aug 28, 2009, at 8:55 AM, ext Robin Berjon wrote: > >> On Aug 28, 2009, at 11:52 , Marcos Caceres wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 11:25 AM, Robin Berjon<robin@berjon.com> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Same thing, should be a UI product — there's nothing wrong with >>>> having a bit >>>> of that, so long as it's not too constraining. >>> >>> I agree. I don't have a issue with the assertions. I just don't think >>> this UI product should be defined as part of the P&C spec. What spec >>> would house the UI product? >> >> Why not? Of the P+C consumer UAs, some will expose a UI. When they do, >> there are a few rules to follow. P+C is the spec that tells you what >> an icon is and where to find it — it seems perfectly fine to me that >> the attached UI requirements would be co-located. > > I agree the text Marcos originally cited [1] should not be a normative > requirement for a P+C UA. > > One way to address this bug is to make the cited text non-normative. > > As implied by these related threads, it would probably make sense to > consolidate these Widget runtime UA requirements in a document. Any > volunteers? > I can edit this, but not until mid October. -- Marcos Caceres http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Sunday, 30 August 2009 16:56:39 UTC