On Oct 7, 2009, at 10:11 AM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Arthur Barstow
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Oct 7, 2009, at 9:25 AM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:
(Apologies up front, the following is going to to seem like a rather
dumb and slightly condescending discussion. I honestly do not
mean it
to be, but its necessary to help me identify where I need to fix the
specification. Please bear with me.)
LOL!
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 2:24 PM, Arthur Barstow
<[email protected]>
wrote:
Since the schema and Authoring guidelines are both non-
normative, the P+C
spec is not clear if an element's attributes are required or not.
When you say "required" (passive voice), do you mean:
My expectation is the spec will normatively state whether an
element's
attributes (e.g. <widget> element has id, version, etc.) are
required or not
in a configuration document.
The spec does not set conformance criteria for configuration
documents.
Sure it does:
[[
http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/Overview_TSE.html#conformance
There are four classes of products that can claim conformance to this
specification:
1. A user agent.
2. A widget package.
3. A configuration document.
]]
-R, AB
