- From: Kazuhiro Kitagawa <kaz@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 10:03:57 +0900
- To: www-mobile@w3.org
Hi Kazuhiro, on Fri I posted this to the www-mobile@w3.org mailing list. Not sure if it got through (I have to confess that I had not subscribed the list by then) but I cannot see it in the archive at http://www.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-mobile/2001Mar/0001.html. Or does it have to be moderated ? Regards, Holger ----- Forwarded message from Holger Blasum <blasum@muc.de> ----- Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 19:47:31 +0100 From: Holger Blasum <blasum@muc.de> To: www-mobile@w3.org Subject: Minor comments on CCPP-vocab User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i Some comments on http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-CCPP-struct-vocab-20010315/ - Section 2.1.3 Defaults, Figure 2-3b: CC/PP profile using defaults in XML [see also Aaron Swartz] <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:ccpp="http://www.w3.org/2000/07/04-ccpp"> <rdf:Description rdf:about="HWDefault"> <rdf:type resource="HardwarePlatform" /> <display>320x200</display> </rdf:Description> [SoftwarePlatform, UABrowser] </rdf:RDF> To which default namespace does the "display" Attribute belong ? Is it intentional that no default namespace had been declared ? If so, why ? (Note: In the corresponding figure 3-4a (Section 3.1.3 Defaults) these Attributes belong the the xmlns prf="http://www.wapforum.org/UAPROF/ccppschema- 20000405#") - Appendix C, second paragraph "The client attribute names defined below may be used to identify some common feature associated with client devices that print or display visual information, such as text or graphics". Does "common features" refer to hardware, operating system or the browser (e.g. pix-x could refer to the browser that has less pixels than the display)? With regard to demand D.3.2. that an "attribute name must be unique in a profile" such unclearness gives unsure feelings. Also in Appendix C, is "charHeight" really the "number of lines of text" that can be displayed ? As far as I understand App C (from the "subliminal feeling") the WG still wants to honor the former IETF-CONNEG work, but does not really encourage one to use it... Sincere regards, -- Holger Blasum <holgerlists@blasum.net>
Received on Tuesday, 27 March 2001 20:03:00 UTC