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

Re: [widgets] P&C Last Call comments, viewmodes, referencing other specs, guarantee of consistency

From: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 17:38:22 +0200
Message-ID: <b21a10670906030838o4e483301vfde2cafb55f6e8@mail.gmail.com>
To: Marcin Hanclik <Marcin.Hanclik@access-company.com>
Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 4:51 PM, Marcin Hanclik
<Marcin.Hanclik@access-company.com> wrote:
> Hi Marcos, All,
> General comment to the below details:
> It is possible that some of the referenced specs will change considerably
> and may break some ideas from the current P&C.

P&C will be stable, and the other specs in the widget family will need
to adapt to it.

> As you know P&C is referenced by some other specs (e.g. BONDI).
> Could we somehow ensure the stability of the P&C references?

Only the ones in the Widget Family of Specs, but not others. However,
P&C does not reference many other working drafts in any significant

> Below issues seem to only be symptoms of the problems we may have in the
> near future.
> It is not only about Views, I think.
> Formal view:
> http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010208/tr.html#last-call
> says:
> “Call announcement must:
> specify the deadline for review comments;
> identify known dependencies and solicit review from all dependent Working
> Groups;
> solicit public review. Consequently, a Last Call Working Draft must be a
> public document.”
> I am not sure whether the item 3 is satisfied.

What do you mean?

> MQE is marked as unpublished and we have (in my opinion) stability issues
> with the normative references.

> 1.       P&C on one hand specifies viewmodes in RelaxNG (non-normatively):
> attribute viewmodes {
>     list {
>       ( "application"
>       | "floating"
>       | "fullscreen"
>       | "mini"
>       | "all" )*
>     }
>   }?,
> and on the other hand P&C directs the reader to another spec
> (“Widgets-Views”) where the said modes are not specified.

Marcin, there is only a limited number of editors. We are doing the
best we can to pump out specs. But there is only so many hours in the

> 2.       “Parts of this document reproduce text and behavior from the
> [HTML5] specification and from the XBL 2.0 specification (as permitted by
> both specifications by their copyright statements).”
> Questions for 1. And 2.:
> Does the spec have to reproduce the text from other specs?


> Could we have one (maybe a “master”) definition of the terms, just for
> consistency reasons?

Maybe, but that is just more work. That is the reason I am editor of
all the specs, so I can keep consistency across all of them. So,
unless I die in a unforeseen accident, I think we should be ok.

> 3.      [Widgets-Views]
> Widgets 1.0: Media Query Extensions. A. Bersvendsen and M. Caceres.
> Unpublished editors' draft.
> Is this the correct reference in terms of the naming (views vs. MQE)?

It's ok for now... we will sort out that mess in the next few weeks.
It's really nothing to worry about.

> I think everything a

I'm going to assume "a" is "awesome" :)

Marcos Caceres
Received on Wednesday, 3 June 2009 15:39:23 UTC

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