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: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 16:11:15 +0200
Message-ID: <b21a10670910070711i1ca78e5at7690687e80ea037c@mail.gmail.com>
To: Arthur Barstow <Art.Barstow@nokia.com>
Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
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. They are no longer considered a class of product. The
specification is exclusively concerned with the behavior of user
agents processing zip files and xml files. Those XML files may be in a
namespace that identifies them as "configuration documents". If that
is that case, apply Step 7.

> I think this information is clear in the 23-July-2009 CR but it is not clear
> in the TSE where the required information is embedded in non-normative
> Authoring Guidelines.

This kind of information is now handled by the conformance checker

Marcos Caceres
Received on Wednesday, 7 October 2009 14:16:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:20 UTC