- From: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 00:41:49 +0100
- To: Max Froumentin <maxfro@opera.com>
- Cc: public-webapps@w3.org
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 <maxfro@opera.com> wrote: > I'm ok with the resolution of all the comments I have not re-commented on below. > > Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com> 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. ok. >> 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 http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Tuesday, 10 March 2009 23:42:32 UTC