Re: widgets feedback

Hi Josh,

Fixed issues below. If satisfied with the corrections, please give us
an OK for the DoC :)

On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 3:27 PM, timeless<> wrote:
> Date: Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 2:52 AM
> 2:29 AM me: hey
>   suppose that times square becomes widget capable
> 2:30 AM and starts running widgets, like a Clock.wdgt
>   who's the "end user"? :){

I guess the person at Times Square that made the decision to activate
the widget.

> ________________________________
> 9 minutes
> 2:40 AM me: Bluetooth is spelled as such, no capital T
>   (i.e., users can share widgets over non-HTTP distribution channels,
> such as BlueTooth, a USB thumb drive, etc.).


>   the idea of using both 'i.e.' and 'etc.' in the same parenthetical
> scares me. although it might be correct in this instance

Dropped etc.; I've no intention of being a grammatical terrorist :)

> 2:41 AM Supported means that a user agent implements a said specification,
>   said -> mentioned ?
>   "a said" sounds really odd
> 2:42 AM maybe "listed", "indicated", ... dunno

Fixed. Used "mentioned"

>   Initialization means a run through the steps for processing a widget
> package post installation of a widget.
>   post => after ?

Used "after".

> 2:43 AM As well as sections marked as non-normative, authoring
> guidelines, diagrams, examples, and notes in this specification are
> non-normative.
>   is hard to parse.
>   <As well as sections marked as non-normative>, <authoring
> guidelines, diagrams, examples, and notes> in this specification are
> non-normative.
> 2:44 AM In addition to (non-normative marked|marked non-normative)
> sections, all authoring guidelines, ... and notes in this
> specification are ... non-normative.
Made it:

Some text in this specification is non-normative. Non-normative text includes:
 * sections marked with the text This section is non-normative,
 *authoring guidelines,
 * examples, including sentences that contain the words "for example",
 * and notes.

Everything else in this specification is normative.

Please see the typographical conventions to see how authoring
guidelines, examples, and notes of this specification are stylized.

There are no diagrams, so I removed that.

> 2:46 AM There are four classes of products that can claim conformance
> to this specification:
> 2:47 AM that => which ?
>   (very uncertain about that)

AFAIK, "that" is correct here. But I can't be bothered looking up a
manual of style.

> 2:49 AM Other legacy/proprietary widget types can be supported by a
> user agent, but a user agent must conform to this specification when
> dealing with a widget package.
>   should this say:
> 2:52 AM While a conforming user agent may support other
> legacy/proprietary widget types in order to conform to this
> specification it must treat widget packages as according to this
> specification.


Marcos Caceres

Received on Friday, 3 July 2009 14:13:45 UTC