Re: RfC: LCWD of Progress Events; deadline September 1
Le 02/09/2011 15:32, Arthur Barstow a écrit : Cyril - unless we hear otherwise from you, we will assume you are satisfied with the way your comments have been addressed: http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/progress/ Anne - assuming Cyril is agreeable with the way his comments were addressed, please update the ED to reflect a CR publication (e.g. add CR exit criteria you used in rev 1.25) and notify me when you are done so I can start a CfC to publish a CR. I agree. Cyril -- Cyril Concolato Maître de Conférences/Associate Professor Groupe Multimedia/Multimedia Group Telecom ParisTech 46 rue Barrault 75 013 Paris, France http://concolato.wp.institut-telecom.fr/
Re: RfC: LCWD of Progress Events; deadline September 1
On Fri, 02 Sep 2011 15:32:19 +0200, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote: Cyril - unless we hear otherwise from you, we will assume you are satisfied with the way your comments have been addressed: http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/progress/ Anne - assuming Cyril is agreeable with the way his comments were addressed, please update the ED to reflect a CR publication (e.g. add CR exit criteria you used in rev 1.25) and notify me when you are done so I can start a CfC to publish a CR. http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/progress/#crec I have not added the CR style sheet yet. I can do that once we have a publication date. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Re: RfC: LCWD of Progress Events; deadline September 1
Cyril - unless we hear otherwise from you, we will assume you are satisfied with the way your comments have been addressed: http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/progress/ Anne - assuming Cyril is agreeable with the way his comments were addressed, please update the ED to reflect a CR publication (e.g. add CR exit criteria you used in rev 1.25) and notify me when you are done so I can start a CfC to publish a CR. -Thanks, AB On 8/16/11 7:54 AM, ext Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 10:06:25 +0200, Cyril Concolato cyril.concol...@telecom-paristech.fr wrote: The sentence is so unreadable that it's hard to suggest something. It starts with a general statement but ends with an example. I think it should be split in two: general statement with a full sentence (now it seems to end at letter ?) and then add the example. Also add to before prefix and start. Fair enough, I dropped it. Progress Events is so small anyway and the specification it depends upon (DOM Core) already has clearer text on extensibility. There are no requirements. When reading that: The editor is encouraged to define it in a way consistent with this, it did not seem so. Well there are no specific requirements. If other editors do it wrong that will be pointed out, but since use can vary wildly I doubt that will happen much. Because it very much depends on the context. Example ? Cross-origin XMLHttpRequest versus same-origin XMLHttpRequest versus the HTML application cache feature.
Re: RfC: LCWD of Progress Events; deadline September 1
Le 14/08/2011 14:05, Anne van Kesteren a écrit : On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 09:36:33 +0200, Cyril Concolato cyril.concol...@telecom-paristech.fr wrote: Le 09/08/2011 19:34, Arthur Barstow a écrit : On August 9, WebApps published LCWD #2 of the Progress Events spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-progress-events-20110809/ Section 2.1: If this is for some reason not possible prefix the extension in some way and start the prefix with an uppercase letter. E.g. if company Foo wants to add a private method bar() it could be named FooBar() to prevent clashes with a potential future standardized bar(). This sentence in hard to read and unclear. Please rephrase/fix it. Suggestions? The sentence is so unreadable that it's hard to suggest something. It starts with a general statement but ends with an example. I think it should be split in two: general statement with a full sentence (now it seems to end at letter ?) and then add the example. Also add to before prefix and start. Section 4.2: It should indicate what the requirements for other specifications are to define properly the use of these events. There are no requirements. When reading that: The editor is encouraged to define it in a way consistent with this, it did not seem so. Section 4.3: Why aren't the names of events, and the instant and number of times they are dispatched, not normatively defined ? This would be beneficial for consistency in the web platform, wouldn't it? Because it very much depends on the context. Example ? Cyril -- Cyril Concolato Maître de Conférences/Associate Professor Groupe Multimedia/Multimedia Group Telecom ParisTech 46 rue Barrault 75 013 Paris, France http://concolato.wp.institut-telecom.fr/
Re: RfC: LCWD of Progress Events; deadline September 1
On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 10:06:25 +0200, Cyril Concolato cyril.concol...@telecom-paristech.fr wrote: The sentence is so unreadable that it's hard to suggest something. It starts with a general statement but ends with an example. I think it should be split in two: general statement with a full sentence (now it seems to end at letter ?) and then add the example. Also add to before prefix and start. Fair enough, I dropped it. Progress Events is so small anyway and the specification it depends upon (DOM Core) already has clearer text on extensibility. There are no requirements. When reading that: The editor is encouraged to define it in a way consistent with this, it did not seem so. Well there are no specific requirements. If other editors do it wrong that will be pointed out, but since use can vary wildly I doubt that will happen much. Because it very much depends on the context. Example ? Cross-origin XMLHttpRequest versus same-origin XMLHttpRequest versus the HTML application cache feature. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Re: RfC: LCWD of Progress Events; deadline September 1
Le 09/08/2011 19:34, Arthur Barstow a écrit : On August 9, WebApps published LCWD #2 of the Progress Events spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-progress-events-20110809/ Section 2.1: If this is for some reason not possible prefix the extension in some way and start the prefix with an uppercase letter. E.g. if company Foo wants to add a private method bar() it could be named FooBar() to prevent clashes with a potential future standardized bar(). This sentence in hard to read and unclear. Please rephrase/fix it. Section 4.2: It should indicate what the requirements for other specifications are to define properly the use of these events. Section 4.3: Why aren't the names of events, and the instant and number of times they are dispatched, not normatively defined ? This would be beneficial for consistency in the web platform, wouldn't it? Regards, Cyril -- Cyril Concolato Maître de Conférences/Associate Professor Groupe Multimedia/Multimedia Group Telecom ParisTech 46 rue Barrault 75 013 Paris, France http://concolato.wp.institut-telecom.fr/
