W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2009

[widgets] Comments on 4-Aug-2009 LCWD of WARP spec

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 15:04:24 -0400
Message-Id: <4CD83A93-7CC0-46FD-AF2C-640B8ECFF7B7@nokia.com>
To: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Below are some comments regarding the 4-August-2009 Last Call Working  
Draft of the WARP spec:

  <http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-widgets-access-20090804/>

-Regards, Art Barstow


1. This spec is missing a statement about which sections are  
normative and which are non-normative as well as the RFC2119  
boilerplate re keywords

2. Section 1.1 - Network Resource - since this section is presumably  
normative, this definition should cite the relevant spec that defines  
URI and the authority components

3. Section 1.1 - Web Execution Scope - instead of "have been loaded  
off the web", I think the important point (to contrast this  
definition with Widget Execution Scope"), would be to say "are  
external to the widget package".

4. Section 1.2 - replace the text in this section with a reference to  
the Widgets Family of Specs wiki:

  <http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/WidgetSpecs>

5. Section 1.3 - the "Restricted access to remote web resources"  
requirement (including Motivation and Rationale) should be moved to  
[Widgets-Reqs] and a pointer to this requirement should be added to  
the list of requirements addressed by this spec. BTW, I think the  
title of this requirement should use "Restrict" [verb] and not  
"Restricted" [adjective]; NB "A UA may wish to Restrict access ...".

6. Section 1.3 - I don't understand the following statement. For  
starters, what is "This"?

[[
This raises the possibility for users installing Widgets that are  
unable to function due to access restrictions on remote web services.
]]

Given the statement that follows the above ("By providing ...") and  
the ensuing "For example ...", perhaps the statement quoted above  
should be deleted or concatenated with its previous statement/paragraph.

7. Section 2 - a few items:

a. the term Policy is not defined and it should it be (perhaps in  
Section 1.1)

b. This section is titled "Policy" yet the section itself never uses  
that term. This section's focus seems to be "widget execution scope".

c. First paragraph - the use of "MAY" should be changed to "may"  
since its usage is non-normative (that sentence is informative). The  
use of "MUST apply" should be changed to "applies" since that  
sentence is also informative.

d. 2nd para - change MAY to "may" since this sentence is non- 
normative [NB the sentence starts with "Note".]

e. 3rd para - it seems like the essence of this paragraph is stated  
in the first paragraph thus this paragraph should be deleted

f. I think this Section should be marked as non-normative

8. Section 3:

a. The "MAY" in ... this element MAY be used" should be "may"

b. The "MAY" in the definition of the uri attribute should be "may"

c. To be consistent with the P&C spec, the valid boolean values  
should be explicit as is done in that spec:

  http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/CR-widgets-20090723/#attribute-types

Alternatively, tighten up the following part of Section 4 such that  
the valid boolean values are well-defined:

[[
Let sub domains be the result of applying the rule for getting a  
single attribute value to the value of the subdomains attribute. If  
the value of sub domains is not a valid boolean value, then this  
element is in error and the user agent must ignore it.
]]

9. Section 4:

a. The "rule for getting a single attribute value" should be defined

b. Typo: "then prepend the a U+..." should be "then prepend U+..."

c. The following text has a bug since the

10. Informative Refs - update A&E spec to its new title
Received on Tuesday, 15 September 2009 19:05:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:33 GMT