Re: [widgets] feature: inconsistent behavior ?

Le 05/01/2010 23:54, Marcos Caceres a écrit :
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 10:13 AM, Cyril Concolato
> <>  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 Concolato
Maître de Conférences/Associate Professor
Groupe Mutimedia/Multimedia Group
Telecom ParisTech
46 rue Barrault
75 013 Paris, France

Received on Wednesday, 6 January 2010 09:00:58 UTC