W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > November 2009

Re: Comments on AssocSS Editor's Draft 10 November 2009

From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 11:02:06 +0100
To: "Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com>, public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.u3bvhsk6idj3kv@simon-pieterss-macbook.local>
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 21:14:12 +0100, Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com> wrote:

> It's looking pretty good to me.  Some comments embedded.
> If I haven't made a comment about something, I'm fine
> with how it is.

Ok.


>> Do you have any suggestions for what it should say?
>
> Replace the Note you just added with the following (with
> appropriate markup and links):
>
>  Documents conforming to this specification MUST be well-formed
>  XML documents

Why? What if documents come into being with script without being XML  
documents?


> that conform to all the MUST and MUST NOT constraints
>  given for documents in this specification.
>
>  Processors conforming to this specification MUST conform to all
>  the MUST and MUST NOT constraints given for processors in this
>  specification.  Processors do not have to check or enforce any
>  of the constraints given for documents in this specification.

It seems a bit circular to me to have a requirement that requirements be  
followed; isn't it enough to reference RFC2119?

Maybe we can write it as statements of fact, as in:

    Documents conforming to this specification conform to all the MUST and
    MUST NOT constraints given for documents in this specification.

    Processors conforming to this specification conform to all the MUST and
    MUST NOT constraints given for processors in this specification.
    Processors do not have to check or enforce any of the constraints given
    for documents in this specification.

Still, it seems to be stating the obvious: to be conforming, you have to  
conform.


>> Changed to be more like the above.
>
> I'm okay with your changes except delete the ellipsis (the ...).

Done.


>> Actually, there were, by referencing HTML4 for requirements about href,
>> media, etc.
>
> But HTML4 did not, for example, require that values of the media
> attribute matches the media_query_list production of the Media
> Queries specification because that spec didn't yet exist.

Instead HTML4 required that the value be a comma-separated list of the  
media descriptors in HTML4. MQ allows a superset of that.


> So
> by putting MUSTs in here, I still believe we are making some documents
> conforming to AssocSS 1st Edition non-conforming to the 2nd Edition.

For media='' I believe it's the opposite: we now allow values that were  
previously non-conforming.


>> Why?
>
> Because I think everyone who contributes to a W3C spec--not counting
> the editors--deserves equal credit, so I don't like naming some but
> not others.

I agree. I've tried to name everyone I know contributed.


> And I've seen specs with acknowledgements that include
> people that contributed to such an early version that it's almost
> silly to still have their name associated with it (viz. NS 1.0),
> and I don't like to continue such a trend.  Finally we all contribute
> to the progress of W3C on a voluntary basis, and I don't think that
> we should do that with the expectation of seeing our name in print.

I don't really understand your concern. :-)


> I guess I'm just against acknowledgements.  But this is my opinion
> as a WG member, not the chair, so we'll see what others say.

Yes.

-- 
Simon Pieters
Opera Software
Received on Friday, 13 November 2009 10:03:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:41 UTC