- From: Al Gilman <Alfred.S.Gilman@IEEE.org>
- Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 23:36:11 -0500
- To: public-diselect-editors@w3.org
Works for me. Disposition accepted. Al At 2:05 PM +0000 11/28/05, Roland Merrick wrote: >Greetings Al, thanks for your comments on the content selection last >call [1]. As part of this you include "process=once" which states: > ><snip>When the DISelect processing is being performed client-side, >this would appear to bar the user from obtaining some adjustments to >the user experience that they would otherwise be able to reach by >adjusting preferences and re-processing. What is the motivation for >this option? Is it for efficiency when the author is confident that >re-evaluation will yield the same result? If so, why not state the >clause in terms of "if process=once then the processor MAY, when the >document is reprocessed, retain the old value established the first >time processed and not re-evaluate the expressions in the scope of >this [directive]." Then the client-side processor will be sure not >to be functionally impaired by the semantics of this feature.</snip> > >The DIWG assigned this comment the identifier Gilman-10. > >This mail documents DIWG's response to your comments. > >DIWG Response >============= > >As the WG discussed this and a related one McCathieNevile-5, we >realised that there are a number of deficiencies in the reprocess >feature. We have decded to remove the process element and the >associated diselect-reprocess event. > >[1] >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-diselect-editors/2005AprJun/0012.html > >Regards, Roland
Received on Wednesday, 8 November 2006 04:36:19 UTC