RE: question about number of occurrences of author and content elements (in Widget packaging spec)

No, it is in webapps (all the widgets work is there) - try: public-webapps@w3.org

Cheers!


David.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ricardo Varela [mailto:phobeo@gmail.com] 
Sent: 02 July 2010 09:02
To: David Rogers
Subject: Re: question about number of occurrences of author and content elements (in Widget packaging spec)

mmm... is widget packaging and configuration... isn;t that in DAP? did
i got the mails wrong?

---
ricardo

On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 3:42 PM, David Rogers <david.rogers@omtp.org> wrote:
> Hi Ricardo - did you mean to send that to webapps rather than DAP?
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> David.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-device-apis-request@w3.org [mailto:public-device-apis-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Ricardo Varela
> Sent: 02 July 2010 04:57
> To: public-device-apis@w3.org; Marcos Caceres
> Subject: question about number of occurrences of author and content elements (in Widget packaging spec)
>
> hallo all, hallo Marcos,
>
> We have a small question regarding what we interpret may be an
> inconsistency in the behaviours for parsing a config file as commented
> in the W3C widget packaging spec [1]
>
> According to the spec (latest and also older versions), the
> occurrences of some elements (eg: author or content) have to be zero
> or one
>
> However, on the algorithm to process a configuration document quoted
> below, it states: "If this is not the first author element
> encountered, then the user agent must ignore this element and any
> child nodes" It just says ignore and doesn't say to consider it as
> error
>
> Isn't this a contradiction in the parsing of the configuration
> document? We understand that it should be one of these 2 cases:
>
> a) we allow for more than one instance of author and content and let
> the first one take precedence (and therefore the occurrences should be
> "zero or more")
> b) we allow only one instance of author and content elements (and
> therefore the parsing algorithm has got to stop with error on further
> occurrences)
>
> Would appreciate some clarification about this, as we want to clarify
> what to do for our compliance tests
>
> Thanks a lot in advance!
>
> Saludos!
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets/

>
> --
> Ricardo Varela  -  http://phobeo.com  -  http://twitter.com/phobeo

> "Though this be madness, yet there's method in 't"
>
>



-- 
Ricardo Varela  -  http://phobeo.com  -  http://twitter.com/phobeo

"Though this be madness, yet there's method in 't"

Received on Friday, 2 July 2010 08:04:31 UTC