- From: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 16:30:19 +0200
- To: Arthur Barstow <Art.Barstow@nokia.com>
- Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Arthur Barstow <Art.Barstow@nokia.com> wrote: > 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. > ]] > Touché, changed it to: There is only one class of product that can claim conformance to this specification: a user agent. -- Marcos Caceres http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Wednesday, 7 October 2009 14:31:17 UTC