Hi, Ian-
Ian Hickson wrote (on 2/26/08 3:42 PM):
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008, Doug Schepers wrote:
> > >
> > > * I don't understand "A User Agent may implement similar
> > > interfaces in other specifications, but such implementation is not
> > > required for conformance to this specification, if the User Agent
> > > is designed for a minimal code footprint." I suggest dropping this
> > > sentence.
> >
> > That's an odd request. A better suggestion might be to clarify the
> > sentence, since I wouldn't have put it in if I didn't think the
> > point needed to be made.
> >
> > Most of the functionality of this spec is an optimized subset of
> > DOM2 Traversal & Range, and it is intended that a UA could implement
> > both by aliasing; however, this isn't required for conformance to
> > this specification. I hope that clarifies it for you.
>
> It's not a subset at all. Clarification is ok too, but I think the
> sentence is a distraction.
It can be implemented as a subset of functionality. If others agree
with you, I will rework of remove the sentence in question, though.
For what it's worth I didn't understand the sentence either, before you
explained it. Even now, it sort of reads as saying that if you're not a
"minimal code footprint" UA (who isn'?), you are not allowed to implement
other similar specs. Or possibly, you are required to implement them, it's
not clear. It certainly seems like confusing use of RFC2119 terminology.
Hmmm... well, if you say so. It seems clear to me, but maybe that's
because I wrote it.
Given that I already mention DOM2 Traversal & Range elsewhere, so people
are familiar with the distinction, maybe it's best I remove it. I don't
think I intended that as a testable assertion, anyway.
Ok, I'll consider something like that.
Incidentally, from one fellow spec writer to another, in particular one
who has to deal with an ungodly amount of feedback :-), I would recommend
replying to each e-mail _after_ having made all the changes that you plan
to do in reply to the e-mail, rather than before -- that way, you have a
clear way of telling how much feedback you have left, and the commentors
have a clear way of knowing when to look at the spec to see if they are
happy with the new text. Just a suggestion, take it or leave it as you
wish, I just find it helps. :-)
I appreciate the feedback. I had indeed already made the changes, but
problems with CVS prevented me from updating the public CVS copy
temporarily. The changes were in the soon-to-be-published version,
though, as I'd said.
Regards-
-Doug Schepers
W3C Team Contact, SVG, CDF, and WebAPI
