RE: PWP draft to be discussed on tomorrow's (Dec-11) call

> "There must be a FOO" to "If there is no FOO, the UA must BAR", the
> BAR part is new, and getting to that is the point of using this type of phrasing.

But, like I said, the "bar" part is already present for many of the infoset properties if you read their definitions; that's why I don't think 3.2 adds a lot of value and suggest we drop it for now. We're not going to solve the properties that are missing handling before FPWD, and I didn't attempt to, but I agree they need returning to.

What I was more specifically referring to there was other instances that can be more clearly stated as authoring/user agent requirements, instead of just referring to their need passively.

Matt

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Florian Rivoal [mailto:florian@rivoal.net]
> Sent: December 11, 2017 6:56 PM
> To: Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@gmail.com>
> Cc: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>; W3C Publishing Working Group <public-
> publ-wg@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: PWP draft to be discussed on tomorrow's (Dec-11) call
> 
> 
> > On Dec 12, 2017, at 0:19, Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I've done a quick sweep through the document to look for passive voice
> uses that we can tie more explicitly to user agent/author, without changing
> any of the requirements of the specification.
> >
> 
> I am not sure about "without changing any of the requirements". When you
> go from "There must be a FOO" to "If there is no FOO, the UA must BAR", the
> BAR part is new, and getting to that is the point of using this type of phrasing.
> 
> —Florian

Received on Tuesday, 12 December 2017 00:47:39 UTC