- From: Arthur Barstow <Art.Barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 10:15:37 -0400
- To: "marcosc@opera.com" <marcosc@opera.com>
- Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
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 UTC