Re: [widgets] P+C spec doesn't normatively state whether attributes are required or not

(Apologies up front, the following is going to to seem like a rather
dumb and slightly condescending discussion. I honestly do not mean it
to be, but its necessary to help me identify where I need to fix the
specification. Please bear with me.)

On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 2:24 PM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com> wrote:
> Since the schema and Authoring guidelines are both non-normative, the P+C
> spec is not clear if  an element's attributes are required or not.

When you say "required" (passive voice), do you mean:

1.  the user agent is required to implement ...
    OR
2.  the author is required to use ...

Example of 1:
  The user agent is required to support the <widget> element and its
attributes.

Example of 2:
   An author is required to use the <widget> element in a
configuration document.

> The spec should clearly state, with normative text, if an element's
> attribute(s) are required or not.

Again, required by who? The user agent or the author?

The specification does state what must be present in a configuration
document in order for a UA to treat the configuration document as
parsable:

[[
If doc is not namespace well-formed [XML], then the user agent must
terminate this algorithm and treat this widget package as an invalid
Zip archive.

If the root element is not a widget element in the widget namespace,
then the user agent must terminate this algorithm and treat this
widget package as an invalid Zip archive.
]]

Kind regards,
Marcos

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

Received on Wednesday, 7 October 2009 13:26:52 UTC