W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: [widgets] Draft Minutes from 14 May 2009 Voice Conference

From: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 13:26:34 +0200
Message-ID: <4A12976A.1000102@opera.com>
To: Arthur Barstow <Art.Barstow@nokia.com>
CC: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>

On 5/19/09 12:44 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> Marcos,
> On May 19, 2009, at 4:15 AM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:
>> On 5/18/09 7:05 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
>>> What is the status of the P&C's L10N model?
>>> It appears you've made some progress since the May 14 call:
>>> <http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/>
>>> Are you blocked on anyone else's inputs/actions?
>> I'm not blocked by anyone, though access still needs work. Robin and I
>> are on it though. Arve also discovered some issue with <feature>, which
>> I am addressing.
> Please elaborate on the "issue with <feature>".

The issue with feature is that it is unclear as to how URIs are 
interpreted. The Generic URI spec says that the following are all the same:


The XML namespace spec, on the other hand, says that the above are all 

So, I had spec'ed that URIs in feature to be interpreted as Generic 
URIs. So, if I say the following:

<feature name="http://example.com:/"/>

and then in the start file I ask:

widget.hasFeature("http://example.com") would return TRUE.

Arve said that, "no, URIs should be treated as namespace URIs". In which 

widget.hasFeature("http://example.com") would return FALSE.

The only way to get back true, would be to ask:


And, therein lies the problem :) My position was that URIs should be 
treated as Generic URIs. However, Arve pointed out, and TLR agreed, that 
treating URIs as Namespace URIs makes processing simpler (they work just 
like namespaces).

Kind regards,
Received on Tuesday, 19 May 2009 11:27:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:12:53 UTC