W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2010

Re: question about number of occurrences of author and content elements (in Widget packaging spec)

From: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2010 18:48:53 +0200
Message-ID: <4C34AFF5.8090905@opera.com>
To: Ricardo Varela <phobeo@gmail.com>
CC: public-device-apis@w3.org, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Ok, please let me know if you need me to clarify anything in the spec. 
I'm happy to help where I can. Please also note that I checked in a 
bunch of tests relating to viewmodes today.

Kind regards,
Marcos

On 7/7/10 6:39 PM, Ricardo Varela wrote:
> hallo Marcos (and sorry for the confusion in copying groups)
>
> I think the clarifications below should be fine. We are using the W3C
> tests but just wanted to be sure we were interpreting the test cases
> in the proper way
>
> Thanks for your help
>
> Saludos!
>
> ---
> ricardo
>
> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Marcos Caceres<marcosc@opera.com>  wrote:
>> Hi Ricardo,
>>
>> (moving discussion to public-webapps)
>>
>> On 7/2/10 5:56 AM, Ricardo Varela wrote:
>>>
>>> hallo all, hallo Marcos,
>>>
>>> We have a small question regarding what we interpret may be an
>>> inconsistency in the behaviours for parsing a config file as commented
>>> in the W3C widget packaging spec [1]
>>>
>>> According to the spec (latest and also older versions), the
>>> occurrences of some elements (eg: author or content) have to be zero
>>> or one
>>
>> I'm sorry, the specification is unclear. It says "expected children (in any
>> order)", but it certainly is not intended to be a restriction on authors -
>> that is to say, it would make no sense to punish authors who put in two
>> author elements by mistake. A conformance checker could then warn if
>> something out of the expected (such as two author elements) if found in the
>> document. This is defined in this yet to be published spec:
>>
>> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-pc-cc/Overview.src.html
>>
>>> However, on the algorithm to process a configuration document quoted
>>> below, it states: "If this is not the first author element
>>> encountered, then the user agent must ignore this element and any
>>> child nodes" It just says ignore and doesn't say to consider it as
>>> error
>>>
>>> Isn't this a contradiction in the parsing of the configuration
>>> document? We understand that it should be one of these 2 cases:
>>>
>>> a) we allow for more than one instance of author and content and let
>>> the first one take precedence (and therefore the occurrences should be
>>> "zero or more")
>>
>> No, only one is expected.
>>
>>> b) we allow only one instance of author and content elements (and
>>> therefore the parsing algorithm has got to stop with error on further
>>> occurrences)
>>
>> Certainly not: the parser is not a conformance checker. The parser should be
>> able to flexibly handle all garbage input gracefully, as well as be future
>> compatible (in case we want to allow more than one author or content element
>> on the future).
>>
>>> Would appreciate some clarification about this, as we want to clarify
>>> what to do for our compliance tests
>>
>> I hope that clarifies things. If not, I'm happy to discuss further.
>>
>> Also, are you making your own compliance tests or using the official ones?:
>>
>> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/test-suite/
>>
>>> Thanks a lot in advance!
>>>
>>> Saludos!
>>>
>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets/
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Marcos Caceres
>> Opera Software
>>
>
>
>

-- 
Marcos Caceres
Opera Software
Received on Wednesday, 7 July 2010 16:49:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:39 GMT