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

Hi all,

I've made partial changes as Florian suggested in
https://github.com/w3c/pwpub/pull/21, which has been merged.

More language changes in this same spirit should be made (e.g. removal of
the last MAY in the Conformance section) as the doc matures.

Regards,
Dave

On 12 December 2017 at 11:23, Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@gmail.com> wrote:

> > But, like I said, the "bar" part is already present for many of the
> infoset
> > properties if you read their definitions
>
> And just to be clear, this may be a place where the language of necessity
> comes into play. Right now we mostly only state how a user agent may
> compile missing properties/structures (or infer them), but perhaps these
> should have stronger statements. And if they are critical and missing, and
> cannot be compiled or inferred from elsewhere, we should define what impact
> it has on the UA.
>
> There's still a lot open to tackle in the manifest/infoset for future
> drafts, for sure, as we put a freeze on these sections earlier so we could
> move on to other parts of the specification in need of attention.
>
> Matt
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Matt Garrish [mailto:matt.garrish@gmail.com]
> > Sent: December 11, 2017 7:47 PM
> > To: 'Florian Rivoal' <florian@rivoal.net>
> > 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
> >
> > > "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
> >
>
>
>
>