Re: Comments on Widgets spec

Hi Dom,

Fixes inline...

For the sake of the Disposition of Comments, please let us know if you
are satisfied with the fixes below (if possible, by the 9th of July).

On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 6:35 PM, Dominique Hazael-Massieux<dom@w3.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 5.3 Zip Relative Paths has the following bugs:
>  * the ABNF for zip-rel-path uses "localized-folder", but only
> "locale-folder" is defined

Fixed, updated, and simplified. Can you please check the new ABNF?

>  * the third rule for the conformance checker should be:
>  "A CC must inform the author of any Zip relative paths whose length
> exceed 120 characters" (rather than "bytes").

Fixed.

> http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets/#conformance-checker-behavior4 seems to be
> misplaced under 7.2 instead of 7.3

Fixed. Moved to section 8 (the document sections got reshuffled to
make the document easier to read). See:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/#conformance-checker-behavior4


> There are quite a few aspects that make a zip archive an invalid widget
> described in the processing section, but which are not highlighted as
> conformance checker requirements, e.g:
>  * Step 1  labels an archive with a wrong media type as invalid

Added to Media Type section:
[[
Conformance Checker Behavior
A CC MUST inform the author if a widget package is not being served
from a remote location with the valid widget media type.
]]

>  * Step 2 adds as cause of invalidity "split"-zips, and encrypted-zips
> (beyond the already noted requirements on version and compression
> method)

Added to Invalid Zip Archive section:
[[
Conformance Checker Behavior

A CC must inform the author that a Zip archive that is split into
multiple files or spans multiple volumes, as defined in the [ZIP]
specification, is an invalid zip archive.

A CC must inform the author that a Zip archive that is encrypted
(which is denoted by bit 0 of the general purpose field being set and
by the presence of archive decryption header and an archive extra data
record, all three of which are defined in the [ZIP] specification), is
an invalid zip archive.

A CC must inform the author that a Zip archive that contains zero file
entries is an invalid zip archive.

A CC must inform the author that a Zip archive that contains only
folders is an invalid zip archive.
]]

>  * requirements on the configuration file (XML well-formed, vocabulary
> constraints)
> (and probably more)
>
Instead of writing conformance checking for every element and
attribute, I wrote the following Conformance Checker Behavior:

[[

A CC should process a configuration document using the algorithm to
process a configuration document. However, where an element or
attribute is in error, or invalid, the conformance checker must inform
the author.

A CC may validate a configuration document against the Relax NG for
the configuration document.
]]


Kind regards,
Marcos

-- 
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au

Received on Tuesday, 7 July 2009 17:54:47 UTC