On Jan 6, 2010, at 20:47 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
The ignore-unknowns strategy is largely built in order to support
extensibility: because you ignore stuff you don't understand, it's possible
for a v1 processor to process a v27 document (assuming it's designed to be
compatible, which it
On Jan 6, 2010, at 21:58 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
Well, you know my concern. I want to understand the spec in order to
implement it properly. I'm not asking for any new normative statement, nor
any change to the existing ones. I would be fine with informative notes
explaining the intents of
Hi,
Now that Selectors API Level 1 is published and basically all but
finalised (just waiting for some implementations to be officially
released before taking it to REC), can we publish Selectors API Level 2
as an FPWD?
It would be useful to have it more widely reviewed, especially since
The draft minutes from the January 7 Widgets voice conference are
available at the following and copied below:
http://www.w3.org/2010/01/07-wam-minutes.html
WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send
them to the public-webapps mail list before 14 January 2010
Hi Robin,
Le 06/01/2010 17:43, Robin Berjon a écrit :
Hi Cyril,
sorry to put you on the spot, but I don't recall this being discussed by WebApps
I know that a liaison was sent from MPEG to the W3C early may 2009 and that the
WG was informed.
and you're listed as one of the authors:
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 4:10 PM, Cyril Concolato cyril.concol...@enst.fr wrote:
Le 06/01/2010 20:46, Marcos Caceres a écrit :
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Scott Wilson
scott.bradley.wil...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6 Jan 2010, at 10:08, Cyril Concolato wrote:
I think you misunderstood me.
The XML Security WG is considering changing the syntax of the Profile
and Role elements of the XML Signature Properties spec.
It appears to me the proposed change would affect at least sections 5.
{1,2,3} and the example.
If you have any comments on the proposed changes, please send them to
Given the CR stage [1] of Widgets Signature, it probably makes sense
to not make this schema change, since it would break implementations,
even though changes are still allowed at this stage. As Scott notes,
it is more of a style issue - however I thought it worth mentioning
given that
Arthur Barstow wrote on 2010-01-07:
Frederick, Scott - would you please explain the rationale for the
proposed change?
I was asked to produce an XSD for the Signature Properties document, and I
saw that it was using an overly complex syntax to express something that's
just a URI. Using complex
I've updated the UMP spec to use a declarative style and moved the
algorithmic specification to a non-normative appendix. Hopefully this
organization will appeal to fans of either style. See:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/UMP/
I'm hoping to move UMP forward to FPWD as soon as possible. Please let
10 matches
Mail list logo
