W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2011

Re: Minor comments on Widgets

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 08:14:37 -0400
Message-ID: <4D81FB2D.1010702@nokia.com>
To: marcosc@opera.com
CC: "Phillips, Addison" <addison@lab126.com>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>, "public-i18n-core@w3.org" <public-i18n-core@w3.org>
[Ooops; Sent before read ... ]

Marcos - Addison's comments were submitted during the comment period of 
a proposal to publish a new LCWD of this spec. I think that publication 
should be blocked until there is consensus on how to address the comments.


On Mar/17/2011 7:49 AM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote:
> Marcos - Addison's comments were submitted during the comment period 
> of a proposal to publish a new LCWD of this spec.
> On Mar/17/2011 7:21 AM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:
>> (accidentally hit reply instead of reply all, so sending again)
>> On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Phillips, 
>> Addison<addison@lab126.com>  wrote:
>>> Hello Webapps WG,
>>> (these are personal comments)
>>> I happened to be referring to the Widget spec this morning and 
>>> noticed a few minor items that I feel should be brought to your 
>>> attention.
>>> 1. Section 5.3 (Zip Relative Paths). The ABNF defines 
>>> "language-range". I think this is not desirable. Language ranges are 
>>> input to the matching algorithm (i.e. the user's request). You don't 
>>> really want paths like "locale/de-*-1901". You want concrete paths 
>>> here and "*" has no business in a path. Ideally you would reference 
>>> the "Language-Tag" production in BCP 47 (RFC 5646). However, since 
>>> it is a large production and you don't probably want to directly 
>>> incorporate it, you could incorporate the "obs-language-tag" 
>>> production in the same document instead. You should still say that 
>>> language tags used in paths "must" be valid language tags according 
>>> to the more formal production.
>> Valid point. I don't think anyone will complain if we change this.
>>> 2. Section 5.3. The same production corresponds to BCP 47 (RFC 4647) 
>>> "extended-language-range", although it only allows the tags to use 
>>> lowercase letters. I really feel that mixed case is not that 
>>> difficult to support and that it will save many developers from 
>>> inexplicable silent failures.
>> This is true... however, most engines implemented the case sensitive
>> requirement (implementers had concerns about Unicode case
>> comparisons)). I think it might be hard to fix this one without
>> breaking a bunch of runtimes and maybe content.... need to think about
>> it.
>>> 3. There is no mention of case sensitivity of filenames anywhere 
>>> that I can find. You should define if filenames are case sensitive 
>>> (or not) and what is meant by "case sensitive" if it is supported 
>>> (just ASCII case? Unicode default case mapping?)
>> Search for "case-sensitively" or "case-sensitive" instead. The
>> case-sensitive requirement on files comes a fair bit.
Received on Thursday, 17 March 2011 12:15:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:30 UTC