- From: Cyril Concolato <cyril.concolato@enst.fr>
- Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 10:00:32 +0100
- To: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
- CC: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Le 05/01/2010 23:54, Marcos Caceres a écrit : > On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 10:13 AM, Cyril Concolato > <cyril.concolato@enst.fr> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> The test df.wgt contains a feature without name. In this case, the feature >> element is ignored and the widget remains valid. >> The test d4.wgt contains an invalid feature name. In this case, the widget >> should be considered as invalid. I don't understand that. I understand the >> rationale that if a feature is required, the UA shall not process the >> widget. Whether it does or not understand the feature, it doesn't matter. Is >> it because you foresee evolution in the syntax of feature names, which >> wouldn't be IRI ? If not, I suggest to make this test pass and ignore the >> feature element. >> > > Sorry, but it was a resolution that all correctly named features are > considered required (it's why we had to create the required > attribute). I'm against changing this. It's not because "all correctly named features are considered required" (on which I agree) that "invalid feature names must lead to invalid widgets" (on which I disagree). I think invalid feature names should be ignored. Cyril -- Cyril Concolato Maître de Conférences/Associate Professor Groupe Mutimedia/Multimedia Group Telecom ParisTech 46 rue Barrault 75 013 Paris, France http://concolato.blog.telecom-paristech.fr/
Received on Wednesday, 6 January 2010 09:00:58 UTC