- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 01:20:35 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6311
Jim Melton <jim.melton@acm.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #1 from Jim Melton <jim.melton@acm.org> 2009-01-13 01:20:35 ---
I, provisionally, disagree. In fact, it was just this consideration that
caused the situation you reported in Bug 6310. I don't believe that a
<windowVars> element should appear in a <windowStartCondition> or
<windowEndCondition> element unless it has some content. Based on that
philosophy, my initial design of the <windowVars> element required the "least
optional" child, the <positionalVariableBinding> element.
However, by accepting your proposed change for Bug 6310, we have introduced the
situation in which an empty list of window variables has two representations,
one with an empty <windowVars> element and one with no <windowVars> element.
Instead of my immediately accepting the recommendation in this bug, I'd like
more discussion of whether my original design was appropriate (meaning that a
<windowVars> element should have a required child <positionalVariableBinding>
element), or whether it's better to make the child <positionalVariableBinding>
element optional in the <windowVars> element and then require the (possibly
empty) <windowVars> child element in the <windowStartCondition> or
<windowEndCondition> elements.
--
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 13 January 2009 01:20:44 UTC