W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2009

Re: [widgets] P+C spec doesn't normatively state whether attributes are required or not

From: Arthur Barstow <Art.Barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 10:15:37 -0400
Message-Id: <8287D354-3EB6-4278-9264-3DF7F82C83E6@nokia.com>
Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
To: "marcosc@opera.com" <marcosc@opera.com>
On Oct 7, 2009, at 10:11 AM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Arthur Barstow  
> <Art.Barstow@nokia.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 7, 2009, at 9:25 AM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:
>>
>>> (Apologies up front, the following is going to to seem like a rather
>>> dumb and slightly condescending discussion. I honestly do not  
>>> mean it
>>> to be, but its necessary to help me identify where I need to fix the
>>> specification. Please bear with me.)
>>
>> LOL!
>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 2:24 PM, Arthur Barstow  
>>> <art.barstow@nokia.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Since the schema and Authoring guidelines are both non- 
>>>> normative, the P+C
>>>> spec is not clear if  an element's attributes are required or not.
>>>
>>> When you say "required" (passive voice), do you mean:
>>
>> My expectation is the spec will normatively state whether an  
>> element's
>> attributes (e.g. <widget> element has id, version, etc.) are  
>> required or not
>> in a configuration document.
>
> The spec does not set conformance criteria for configuration
> documents.

Sure it does:

[[
http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/Overview_TSE.html#conformance

There are four classes of products that can claim conformance to this  
specification:

    1. A user agent.
    2. A widget package.
    3. A configuration document.
]]

-R, AB
Received on Wednesday, 7 October 2009 14:16:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:34 GMT