- From: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2010 18:48:53 +0200
- To: Ricardo Varela <phobeo@gmail.com>
- CC: public-device-apis@w3.org, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Ok, please let me know if you need me to clarify anything in the spec. I'm happy to help where I can. Please also note that I checked in a bunch of tests relating to viewmodes today. Kind regards, Marcos On 7/7/10 6:39 PM, Ricardo Varela wrote: > hallo Marcos (and sorry for the confusion in copying groups) > > I think the clarifications below should be fine. We are using the W3C > tests but just wanted to be sure we were interpreting the test cases > in the proper way > > Thanks for your help > > Saludos! > > --- > ricardo > > On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Marcos Caceres<marcosc@opera.com> wrote: >> Hi Ricardo, >> >> (moving discussion to public-webapps) >> >> On 7/2/10 5:56 AM, Ricardo Varela wrote: >>> >>> hallo all, hallo Marcos, >>> >>> We have a small question regarding what we interpret may be an >>> inconsistency in the behaviours for parsing a config file as commented >>> in the W3C widget packaging spec [1] >>> >>> According to the spec (latest and also older versions), the >>> occurrences of some elements (eg: author or content) have to be zero >>> or one >> >> I'm sorry, the specification is unclear. It says "expected children (in any >> order)", but it certainly is not intended to be a restriction on authors - >> that is to say, it would make no sense to punish authors who put in two >> author elements by mistake. A conformance checker could then warn if >> something out of the expected (such as two author elements) if found in the >> document. This is defined in this yet to be published spec: >> >> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-pc-cc/Overview.src.html >> >>> However, on the algorithm to process a configuration document quoted >>> below, it states: "If this is not the first author element >>> encountered, then the user agent must ignore this element and any >>> child nodes" It just says ignore and doesn't say to consider it as >>> error >>> >>> Isn't this a contradiction in the parsing of the configuration >>> document? We understand that it should be one of these 2 cases: >>> >>> a) we allow for more than one instance of author and content and let >>> the first one take precedence (and therefore the occurrences should be >>> "zero or more") >> >> No, only one is expected. >> >>> b) we allow only one instance of author and content elements (and >>> therefore the parsing algorithm has got to stop with error on further >>> occurrences) >> >> Certainly not: the parser is not a conformance checker. The parser should be >> able to flexibly handle all garbage input gracefully, as well as be future >> compatible (in case we want to allow more than one author or content element >> on the future). >> >>> Would appreciate some clarification about this, as we want to clarify >>> what to do for our compliance tests >> >> I hope that clarifies things. If not, I'm happy to discuss further. >> >> Also, are you making your own compliance tests or using the official ones?: >> >> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/test-suite/ >> >>> Thanks a lot in advance! >>> >>> Saludos! >>> >>> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets/ >>> >> >> -- >> Marcos Caceres >> Opera Software >> > > > -- Marcos Caceres Opera Software
Received on Wednesday, 7 July 2010 16:49:29 UTC