Le 27 oct. 2006 à 06:31, Ian Hickson a écrit :
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006, Karl Dubost wrote:
Le 26 oct. 2006 à 19:42, Dean Jackson a écrit :
On 06/10/2006, at 9:06 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
This is the only extension mechanism allowed. Other extensions
would
make a UA non-conformant. Content that uses the mechanism described
above would be non-conformant. The only reason this is mentioned at
all is to avoid two implementations using the same attribute name
for that feature.
I still think it is good to remind people in an Extension section.
Ok, I've added an Extension Mechanisms section and removed the
mention of
the 'vendor-binary=""' attribute.
Thanks satisfied.
The WG agree with what Ian says above. Karl, could you please
respond
to say whether you accept this or not?
No traces here
http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/waf/issues
The disposition of comments is at:
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/xbl2/disposition-of-
comments
Thanks for the pointer.
That would be good if the WG could prepare an HTML version will help
certainly during the transition call.
See for example http://www.w3.org/International/its/itstagset/lc-
replies.html
And I have checked in the minutes of the last F2F (24, 25, 26) and
I do not
see where it has been discussed by the WG.
It was discussed here:
http://www.w3.org/2006/10/26-waf-minutes.html#item02
But in my opinion such discussions are irrelevant as they were not
done in
public, with open participation, and therefore should not be
considered
part of the work surrounding the XBL2 specification.
Hmmmm…
Here there is a problem wider than this issue. I may have to report
this at a higher level. It seems to be said, if I understood, that
the WAF WG decisions are irrelevant.
"Please let us know if this does or does not satisfy your comment."
For this specific issue, yes.
--
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager, QA Activity Lead
QA Weblog - http://www.w3.org/QA/
*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
