W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > August 2006

XLink comment from Boris [was: Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2006 July 26]

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 15:00:39 -0400
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D302043F8A6E@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Norman Walsh
> Sent: Wednesday, 2006 July 26 10:58
> To: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2006 July 26

>    Topic: XLink
> 
>    Norm: I've had no time to work on this. Maybe by late August.
> 
>    XLink comment:
>    
>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2006AprJun/
0001.html[10]
> 
>    Henry: Boris says we haven't replied in four months and 
> they need one.
> 
>    Norm: Yeah, we should reply. I thought we would after the 
> end of the
>    comment period, we've just been distracted by other things
>    ... We might like XLink to say that support for 
> xlink:actuate="onRequest"
>    is more than a should, but is that the sort of change we 
> want to make in
>    1.1?
> 
>    Henry: That's not how I read RFC 2119 SHOULD.
> 
>    Richard: I think you could analyze each xlink:actuate and 
> say something
>    more specific.
> 
>    Henry: I don't agree with either of his conclusions. 
> Without further
>    information, I don't know why you didn't do the SHOULD.
>    ... His second suggestion is downright contrary to what 
> the spec says.
>    ... Either you should implement the SHOULD or give a 
> reason why not.
>    ... Other behavior is willfully unhelpful and we don't 
> have to explicitly
>    outlaw that.
> 
>    <fyergeau> RFC 2119: "SHOULD This word, or the adjective 
> "RECOMMENDED",
>    mean that there
> 
>    <fyergeau> may exist valid reasons in particular 
> circumstances to ignore a
> 
>    <fyergeau> particular item, but the full implications must 
> be understood
>    and
> 
>    <fyergeau> carefully weighed before choosing a different course."
> 
>    DV: I think if you don't do "onRequest", you can't do 
> "onLoad" instead.
> 
>    Norm: I think I'd say something like, if you don't do 
> onRequest (and you
>    have a good reason for not doing so), you might just display "Text"
>    without making it a link. I don't think there's any 
> justification that
>    would allow you to ignore the onRequest and treat it as onLoad.
>    ... Or at the very least, you better be able to say why.
> 
>    Richard: I'm not sure I agree, you might have some really 
> good reasons for
>    the proposed behavior (a device with no input capability, 
> for example)
>    ... Though I'm not sure that's sensible behavior...


The minutes confuse me.

Did we reach either a conclusion or action item regarding
this comment from Boris?

paul
Received on Monday, 7 August 2006 19:00:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:34 GMT