- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 10:07:02 -0400
- To: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>, ext Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Aug 28, 2009, at 8:55 AM, ext Robin Berjon wrote: > 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. I agree the text Marcos originally cited [1] should not be a normative requirement for a P+C UA. One way to address this bug is to make the cited text non-normative. As implied by these related threads, it would probably make sense to consolidate these Widget runtime UA requirements in a document. Any volunteers? -Regards, Art Barstow [1] http://www.w3.org/mid/4A96A741.8040703@opera.com
Received on Friday, 28 August 2009 14:08:06 UTC