Re: comments on Packaging and Configuration specification

I'm ok with the resolution of all the comments I have not re-commented on below.

Marcos Caceres <> writes:

>>   "erroneous [DOM3Core] nodes"
>> 9->  not sure what that means
> Changed [DOM3Core] nodes > DOM nodes. Better?

Yes, although I would remove the whole sentence, actually. A "must" in a sentence that starts with "typically" is dangerous. And since it gives a preview of statements that come later in the document, it's in principle not necessary.

>> "An author is a person who creates a widget resource or an authoring tool that generates widget resources."
>> 12->  so if I use a tool to generate a widget, who's the author? Me or the author of the tool I used?
> The tool... or both... does it matter?

It matters for the content of the <author> element, and for various normative statements that are about the behaviour of the author  in the specification.

>> 23->It's confusing that "inform" is in bold. Because we're not in a definitions section, it's not obvious that the paragraph defines what inform means. Couldn't it go in the definitions section, or rephrased to something like "informing means..."
> I see what you mean, but, as stated in the Definition section, lots of
> definitions are given throughout the document. I would prefer to leave
> this one as is.


>> "must not rely upon script"
>> -> "rely" is a vague term, especially after a "must not", although I can't find a better wording.
> Changed it to "Authors using [SVG] as an icon format should create
> icons that use declarative animation, and must not make icons
> exclusively dependent on scripts for animation and interactivity." Not
> sure if it any better?

Yes, better for me. I can't find a better way to say it.

> Author guidelines are just warning to authors

ha! Not if you write statements as above, containing "must"s.

>  your suggestion implies
> that the author must treat it as an invalid archive (which is kinda
> correct, but not really). The UA treating the widget as invalid
> happens later in the doc.
>> -> start file encoding is ISO8859-1? Think you can get away with it?
> The i18n WG said we should use it. Problem?

No, they're the experts!


Received on Tuesday, 10 March 2009 15:23:01 UTC