- From: Cyril Concolato <cyril.concolato@telecom-paristech.fr>
- Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 10:06:25 +0200
- To: public-webapps@w3.org
Le 14/08/2011 14:05, Anne van Kesteren a écrit : > On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 09:36:33 +0200, Cyril Concolato <cyril.concolato@telecom-paristech.fr> wrote: >> Le 09/08/2011 19:34, Arthur Barstow a écrit : >>> On August 9, WebApps published LCWD #2 of the Progress Events spec: >>> >>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-progress-events-20110809/ >> Section 2.1: >> "If this is for some reason not possible prefix the extension in some way and start the prefix with an uppercase letter. E.g. if company Foo wants to add a private method bar() it could be named FooBar() to prevent clashes with a potential future standardized bar()." >> This sentence in hard to read and unclear. Please rephrase/fix it. > > Suggestions? The sentence is so unreadable that it's hard to suggest something. It starts with a general statement but ends with an example. I think it should be split in two: general statement with a full sentence (now it seems to end at "letter" ?) and then add the example. Also add "to" before "prefix" and "start". > > >> Section 4.2: >> It should indicate what the requirements for other specifications are to define properly the use of these events. > > There are no requirements. When reading that: "The editor is encouraged to define it in a way consistent with this", it did not seem so. > > >> Section 4.3: >> Why aren't the names of events, and the instant and number of times they are dispatched, not normatively defined ? This would be beneficial for consistency in the web platform, wouldn't it? > > Because it very much depends on the context. Example ? Cyril -- Cyril Concolato Maître de Conférences/Associate Professor Groupe Multimedia/Multimedia Group Telecom ParisTech 46 rue Barrault 75 013 Paris, France http://concolato.wp.institut-telecom.fr/
Received on Tuesday, 16 August 2011 08:06:48 UTC