Re: comments on Packaging and Configuration specification

Hi Max,
Thanks for the prompt reply. I think I have addressed all of your
concerns. For the sake of the LC process, can you give us a final
thumbs up that you are happy with the changes.

On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 4:22 PM, Max Froumentin <> wrote:
> 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.

Ok, right. I've freed "ignore" from any evilness related to
"typically". It now sits happily on its own:

"During the processing of a configuration document, the specification
will state that a user agent ignore DOM nodes. This means that the
user agent must act as if those nodes were not present"

>>> "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 behavior 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.
> ok.
>>> "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.

Ok. I changed all of them to not use conformance terms.

>>  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!

Agreed :)

Marcos Caceres

Received on Tuesday, 10 March 2009 23:42:32 UTC