- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 14:55:42 +0200
- To: marcosc@opera.com
- Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Aug 28, 2009, at 11:52 , Marcos Caceres wrote: > On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 11:25 AM, Robin Berjon<robin@berjon.com> > wrote: >> Same thing, should be a UI product — there's nothing wrong with >> having a bit >> of that, so long as it's not too constraining. > > I agree. I don't have a issue with the assertions. I just don't think > this UI product should be defined as part of the P&C spec. What spec > would house the UI product? Why not? Of the P+C consumer UAs, some will expose a UI. When they do, there are a few rules to follow. P+C is the spec that tells you what an icon is and where to find it — it seems perfectly fine to me that the attached UI requirements would be co-located. If I may paraphrase: there is no problem that cannot be solved by splitting bits into a different specification, apart from the problem of having too many specifications. -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Received on Friday, 28 August 2009 12:56:24 UTC