Re: comments on WICD Mobile DOM section

On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 17:20:58 +0100, Vincent Hardy <Vincent.Hardy@Sun.COM>  
wrote:
>> 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  
> specification.

Suggested wording:

   A conformanet WICD Mobile 1.0 user agent must support
   the Window Object 1.0 specification. [Window]


> 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.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>

Received on Friday, 2 February 2007 16:48:10 UTC