- From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2005 18:34:32 +0200
- To: public-diselect-editors@w3.org
I have the following comments on the specification draft http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-cselection-20050502/ 1. The spec allows you to ask questions about the size of the window, and about the display size (resolution and colours) of the entire device. This seems of limited use except in allowing authors to determine a layout for the fullscreen and then if there is a difference just put in a message like "move to fullscreen to get the page". This seems to me a bad thing to encourage. I am wondering if there are things that make it more useful? (The only one I could think of was knowing that if the user is at fullscreen they don't see other windows, etc... I am not sure if this should be exposed to authors...) 2. There is no clear way in the spec of finding out the user's font size. Most modern browsers have implemented a minimum font size setting, because users wanted it. Finding out what that is would be extremely helpful for authors, whereas just giving them the pixel size of the screen forces them to make guesses about the font size being used. 3. Section 4.3 discusses the use of selid as an attribute that allows you to specify something which will turn into an ID in the result document - repeating it for several alternative pieces of content. When this is converted, the spec requires a default attribute name to be specified. It seems more sensible to default to xml:id. Instead the specification talks of a language profile that "somehow" defines the attribute that this should become, but does not appear to specify anywhere how this actually occurs or what such a profile looks like. As an alternative to xml:id as a default, it would seem important to clearly specify how such a profile is constructed 4. Section 9.12.2 describes the function of a test for resolution, but simply says that it is a decimal number. It should give units, which apparently (from the explanation in an example, explicitly marked informative) are intended to be dpi. 5. Section 5.8 allows the author to control re-rendering, by suppressing the ability to recalculate what content should be included. This seems like a bad idea, since while it can be used to allow an author to force a user into a particular font size, window configuration, etc, I don't see any positive effects for it. 6. Navigating the specification document would have been easier with at least a link element to its table of contents Cheers Chaals -- Charles McCathieNevile chaals@opera.com hablo español - je parle français - jeg lærer norsk Here's one we prepared earlier: http://www.opera.com/download
Received on Wednesday, 1 June 2005 16:34:36 UTC