Re: Feedback from FOMS

On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 00:03:21 +0100, Silvia Pfeiffer  
<silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 10:01 AM, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>  
> wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 23:53:28 +0100, Philip Jägenstedt  
>> <philipj@opera.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> OK, fair enough. I will try to not be distracted by the prose  
>>> sections. If
>>> possible we should mark them with (Informative), I went with "Note:  
>>> this
>>> section is non-normative" only because I couldn't figure out how to do
>>> (Informative).
>>
>> I tried again and actually something like <inform-div1> adds  
>> (Non-Normative)
>> to the title. The problem is that the section is numbered as an  
>> appendix (C)
>> and doesn't appear in the TOC.
>
> That may be overdoing it a bit, IMHO. :-)
>
> Don't you think it will be obvious what will be informative and what
> will be normative?

Section 3 looks purely informative (pages of just text), but just now I  
found this inside: "If such a user agent natively supports the media  
fragment syntax as specified in this document, it is deemed conformant to  
this specification for fragments and for the particular dimension." That  
really gets lost in the big mass of text, and I guess marking section 3 as  
non-normative was a mistake.

But to answer your question, I'm not terribly worried that implementors or  
authors will think that the examples are the spec or something like that.  
Some strictness to what's what and readability could be improved though.  
That, and finishing section 4, would bring us a lot closer to something we  
can go to LC with.

Unrelated, section 5.1.1 is pretty important and should probably be placed  
somewhere more prominently, not in "Interpreting and Processing Media  
Fragments".

-- 
Philip Jägenstedt
Core Developer
Opera Software

Received on Thursday, 28 January 2010 23:43:31 UTC