- From: Dimitris Dimitriadis <dimitris.dimitriadis@improve.se>
- Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 18:57:41 +0200
- To: "'Curt Arnold'" <carnold@houston.rr.com>, www-dom-ts@w3.org
comments inlined -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Från: Curt Arnold [mailto:carnold@houston.rr.com] Skickat: den 6 juni 2001 17:15 Till: www-dom-ts@w3.org Ämne: Re: Recap and action items > > [dd] OK, so, Required, with null as a default value? I'd really prefer required but null as a prohibited value (at least for now). Since passing null into a DOM method is a fairly rare occurrance, I don't think the slight increase in the test complexity in those rare instances is worth a substantial increase in the complexity of the transform. [dd] OK, so we'll wait to see what happens when we start writing tests. > > [dd] No problem for me, it's just terminology. It could also be good idea > to > > have a pending flag while the DOM WG considers a tests and its relation to > > the specification. > > > > [mb] No problem with these categories, although I agree that we should have > the ability to distinguish between Received and "Pending on clarification > from WG" Status Pending is used for items that need feedback from the submitter. I misused it earlier. Any item that was made "Pending" would revert to "Open" if the submitter made a comment. One way would be to create distinct SourceForge accounts for the TS moderator and/or for the WG. If the test is assigned to the TS moderator, then the test has passed any preparation and is pending discussion within the TS group. If the test is assigned to the WG id, then the test has been referred to the DOM workgroup. [dd] One way of doing it. We could also use the DOM WG rep, NIST rep and one SF rep as the first line of moderators, then move it to "investigated by the DOM WG" as required.
Received on Wednesday, 6 June 2001 12:58:20 UTC