Re: comments on WICD Mobile DOM section

Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 02:58:47 +0100, Vincent Hardy 
> <Vincent.Hardy@Sun.COM> wrote:
>> What we are saying is:
>> "In conformant WICD Mobile 1.0 user agents, the 
>> org.w3c.dom.AbstractView associated with an org.w3c.dom.DocumentView 
>> (I.E THE defaultView property) must be an implementation of the 
>> Window interface as defined in the Window Object 1.0specification."
>> Which means that the defaultView instance has to be a Window object 
>> (as opposed to be another implementation of AbstractView that does 
>> not implement the Window interface). Yes, the Window interface is 
>> defined to extend AbstractView, but that is not enough to specify 
>> that the defaultView property be a Window implementation.
> I see. The Window Object 1.0 specification already mandates that 
> though (section 2.2 in the current draft). So it seems unnecessary.
If we take out section 3.6.10 from WICD Mobile (the one you are 
commenting on), there are no other references to the Window Object 1.0 

The wording we have specifically says that the requirement comes from 
the Window 1.0 specification ("... must be an implementation of the 
Window interface as defined in the Window 1.0 spec.").

As any review and in particular as a member of the working group which 
authored the specification you are commenting on, you are more than 
welcome to make a concrete proposal for a better wording that would 
address your concerns. It is usually a lot easier to get your point 
across if you not only point out something you are not satisfied with 
but also a proposed better way.


Received on Friday, 2 February 2007 16:21:20 UTC