- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 19:59:00 +0200
- To: "Innovimax SARL" <innovimax@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-webapi@w3.org
On Mon, 07 May 2007 19:38:15 +0200, Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Does it mean a conformant implementation could support NO version of >>> XML? >> >> Yes, in theory. > > Isn't there any possibility to put it other way such that at least one > version must be supported ? I'm not sure how that would be an advantage for people using wanting to implement this API in some obscure language. At some point when we get responseBody this will become a relatively simple API to do HTTP stuff with. I don't think we should mandate XML support for that. It makes sense to support it though, hence it already is a "SHOULD" for fostering interoperability. > In that case, I don't understand why "version" is referenced, since only > "1.0" is used, but "1.1" is never referenced. Ah, I see what you mean. I removed "some version" and mentioned namespaces as well. >> This is clear in the specification. It requires files to be namespace >> well-formed. > > I, indeed, find that through reading the rest of the spec. But since, it > is almost repeated each time in the spec, why not putting it here ? Namespaces are now called out. >>> [[ >>> There is a case-insensitive match of strings s1 and s2 if after >>> upercasing both strings (by mapping a-z to A-Z) they are identical. >>> ]] >>> s1 and s2 because there is less confusion with letter a and b >>> uppercasing because it is used latter in the spec for method >> >> Fair enough, done. > > Just to be picky, the uppercasing instead of lowercasing has'nt been > included Hmm. I didn't feel it was needed. However, it's changed now. Thanks! -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Monday, 7 May 2007 17:59:29 UTC