[Ooops; Sent before read ... ]
Marcos - Addison's comments were submitted during the comment period of
a proposal to publish a new LCWD of this spec. I think that publication
should be blocked until there is consensus on how to address the comments.
-AB
On Mar/17/2011 7:49 AM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote:
Marcos - Addison's comments were submitted during the comment period
of a proposal to publish a new LCWD of this spec.
On Mar/17/2011 7:21 AM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:
(accidentally hit reply instead of reply all, so sending again)
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Phillips,
Addison<[email protected]> wrote:
Hello Webapps WG,
(these are personal comments)
I happened to be referring to the Widget spec this morning and
noticed a few minor items that I feel should be brought to your
attention.
1. Section 5.3 (Zip Relative Paths). The ABNF defines
"language-range". I think this is not desirable. Language ranges are
input to the matching algorithm (i.e. the user's request). You don't
really want paths like "locale/de-*-1901". You want concrete paths
here and "*" has no business in a path. Ideally you would reference
the "Language-Tag" production in BCP 47 (RFC 5646). However, since
it is a large production and you don't probably want to directly
incorporate it, you could incorporate the "obs-language-tag"
production in the same document instead. You should still say that
language tags used in paths "must" be valid language tags according
to the more formal production.
Valid point. I don't think anyone will complain if we change this.
2. Section 5.3. The same production corresponds to BCP 47 (RFC 4647)
"extended-language-range", although it only allows the tags to use
lowercase letters. I really feel that mixed case is not that
difficult to support and that it will save many developers from
inexplicable silent failures.
This is true... however, most engines implemented the case sensitive
requirement (implementers had concerns about Unicode case
comparisons)). I think it might be hard to fix this one without
breaking a bunch of runtimes and maybe content.... need to think about
it.
3. There is no mention of case sensitivity of filenames anywhere
that I can find. You should define if filenames are case sensitive
(or not) and what is meant by "case sensitive" if it is supported
(just ASCII case? Unicode default case mapping?)
Search for "case-sensitively" or "case-sensitive" instead. The
case-sensitive requirement on files comes a fair bit.
