On 6/3/09 5:54 PM, Marcin Hanclik wrote:
Hi Marcos,
I am not sure whether the item 3 is satisfied.
What do you mean?
For example:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-widgets-20090528/#the-widget-element
"viewmodes
A keyword list attribute that denotes the view modes supported the widget. The
value SHOULD be one or more of the following valid view modes as defined in the
[Widgets-Views] specification: application, floating, fullscreen, mini, or all.
..."
The question is: which spec is more normative here? P&C or non-existing
Widgets-Views?
As a WUA vendor I would like to support all possible values.
As a widget developer I am interesting in knowing all the options I have.
I understand. Like I said, we are working as quickly as we can. There is
nothing we can do about this. The values are settled on; but they need
to be spec'ed properly.
P&C will be stable, and the other specs in the widget family will need
to adapt to it.
I take this as your personal guarantee.
You got it.
I assume, though, that there is or could be some better process to make it
reality.
Yes, our process is a bit screwy but we get by.
Marcin, there is only a limited number of editors. We are doing the
best we can to pump out specs. But there is only so many hours in the
day.
I can help you. Shall I answer formally to:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0503.html
We already have editors for the specs; it's just that the editors are
caught up over editing. What we need is reviewers. The more reviews we
get, the quicker we move. If you want to really help, keep reviewing
what we already have. Your review of P&C has been very helpful.
I'm going to assume "a" is "awesome" :)
I am sorry for this. My problem.
Marcin Hanclik
ACCESS Systems Germany GmbH
Tel: +49-208-8290-6452 | Fax: +49-208-8290-6465
Mobile: +49-163-8290-646
E-Mail: [email protected]
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
Marcos Caceres
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 5:38 PM
To: Marcin Hanclik
Cc: public-webapps
Subject: Re: [widgets] P&C Last Call comments, viewmodes, referencing other
specs, guarantee of consistency
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 4:51 PM, Marcin Hanclik
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Marcos, All,
General comment to the below details:
It is possible that some of the referenced specs will change considerably
and may break some ideas from the current P&C.
P&C will be stable, and the other specs in the widget family will need
to adapt to it.
As you know P&C is referenced by some other specs (e.g. BONDI).
Could we somehow ensure the stability of the P&C references?
Only the ones in the Widget Family of Specs, but not others. However,
P&C does not reference many other working drafts in any significant
way.
Below issues seem to only be symptoms of the problems we may have in the
near future.
It is not only about Views, I think.
Formal view:
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010208/tr.html#last-call
says:
“Call announcement must:
specify the deadline for review comments;
identify known dependencies and solicit review from all dependent Working
Groups;
solicit public review. Consequently, a Last Call Working Draft must be a
public document.”
I am not sure whether the item 3 is satisfied.
What do you mean?
MQE is marked as unpublished and we have (in my opinion) stability issues
with the normative references.
1. P&C on one hand specifies viewmodes in RelaxNG (non-normatively):
attribute viewmodes {
list {
( "application"
| "floating"
| "fullscreen"
| "mini"
| "all" )*
}
}?,
and on the other hand P&C directs the reader to another spec
(“Widgets-Views”) where the said modes are not specified.
Marcin, there is only a limited number of editors. We are doing the
best we can to pump out specs. But there is only so many hours in the
day.
2. “Parts of this document reproduce text and behavior from the
[HTML5] specification and from the XBL 2.0 specification (as permitted by
both specifications by their copyright statements).”
Questions for 1. And 2.:
Does the spec have to reproduce the text from other specs?
No.
Could we have one (maybe a “master”) definition of the terms, just for
consistency reasons?
Maybe, but that is just more work. That is the reason I am editor of
all the specs, so I can keep consistency across all of them. So,
unless I die in a unforeseen accident, I think we should be ok.
3. [Widgets-Views]
Widgets 1.0: Media Query Extensions. A. Bersvendsen and M. Caceres.
Unpublished editors' draft.
Is this the correct reference in terms of the naming (views vs. MQE)?
It's ok for now... we will sort out that mess in the next few weeks.
It's really nothing to worry about.
I think everything a
I'm going to assume "a" is "awesome" :)
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
________________________________________
Access Systems Germany GmbH
Essener Strasse 5 | D-46047 Oberhausen
HRB 13548 Amtsgericht Duisburg
Geschaeftsfuehrer: Michel Piquemal, Tomonori Watanabe, Yusuke Kanda
www.access-company.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This e-mail and any attachments hereto may contain information that is
privileged or confidential, and is intended for use only by the
individual or entity to which it is addressed. Any disclosure, copying or
distribution of the information by anyone else is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this document in error, please notify us promptly by
responding to this e-mail. Thank you.
