Hi Bryan,
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 6:42 AM, Sullivan, Bryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Marcos,
> I was starting to respond and thank you for the inclusion in the previous
> email when I saw this... having been out for vacation etc I did not get a
> chance to respond earlier.
>
Yeah... as yo
Hi Bryan,
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 12:18 AM, Sullivan, Bryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Marcos,
> Responding a little late (vacations etc),
>
> The CCPP use I've proposed is fairly simple, ala the delivery of a link to a
> capabilities document that is hosted on a web server, and semantically
Hi Bryan,
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 12:06 AM, Sullivan, Bryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Marcos,
> My response is late (the review happened just before vacation and other
> things...), but here it is:
>
> I'm not sure there is a semantically useful way to declare/assess resource
> dependencies
L PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 8:14 PM
To: Sullivan, Bryan
Cc: Arthur Barstow; Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group WG; Web
Applications Working Group WG
Subject: Re: [widgets] MWBP WG Comments of Widgets Reqs LC WD, was Re: Request
for Comments on Widgets 1.0 Requirements L
st Practices Working Group WG; Web
Applications Working Group WG
Subject: Re: [widgets] MWBP WG Comments of Widgets Reqs LC WD, was Re: Request
for Comments on Widgets 1.0 Requirements Last Call WD
Hi Bryan, MWBP WG,
FYI, we discussed the MWBP input in last nights teleconf:
http://lists.w3.org/Archive
b
Applications Working Group WG
Subject: [widgets] CCPP in widgets, was Re: Request for Comments on Widgets 1.0
Requirements Last Call WD
Hi Bryan,
I'm wondering if you could provide us more details about the following
requirement:
> Rxx. User-Agent Profile Header
> A confo
:05 PM
To: Sullivan, Bryan; public-webapps
Subject: [Widgets] R21. Resource Declarations. Was RE: Request for Comments on
Widgets 1.0 Requirements Last Call WD
Hi Bryan,
I'm wondering if you could help me understand "R21. Resource
Declarations", which was proposed in your feedback [1
Hi Bryan, MWBP WG,
FYI, we discussed the MWBP input in last nights teleconf:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008JulSep/0417.html
In summary, although I had included most of the requirements proposed
by the MWBP WG in the Requirements document, the WebApps WG members
overrode
Hi Bryan, MWBP WG,
On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 12:28 PM, Sullivan, Bryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Art,
> The MWBP WG consolidated comments are attached as a HTML document.
>
> General comments:
>
> Somewhere, perhaps in section 4.2, there should something about how
> resources (media etc) need t
P WG consolidated comments are attached as a HTML document.
>
> Best regards,
> Bryan Sullivan | AT&T
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ] On Behalf Of Arthur Barstow
> Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 5:25 AM
> To: [EMAIL
Comments on Widgets 1.0 Requirements Last Call WD
Art, Sally, Steve, All
On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 9:07 PM, Arthur Barstow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sally, Steve, All
>
> FYI, Cynthia Shelly [CS] submitted comments that are similar to the ones you
> submitted regarding requireme
Hi Bryan,
I'm wondering if you could help me understand "R21. Resource
Declarations", which was proposed in your feedback [1]:
> R21. Resource Declarations
>
> A conforming specification must specify a means for declaring that the
> instantiated widget will have an impact on sensitive device or n
Hi David,
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 9:43 PM, David Poehlman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +1, not that Ihave a vote
> chiming in here on this,
>
> You might pick this up, but one instance of language is written as
> "langauge".
fixed.
> for symetry, compactness and accuracy I suggest:
> replace "
Shelly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "public-webapps"
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 4:22 AM
Subject: Re: Request for Comments on Widgets 1.0 Requirements Last Call WD
+1
2008/8/5 Marcos Caceres <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi Steve, Cynthia, and
/softwareaccesscentre
-Original Message-
From: Marcos Caceres [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 05 August 2008 02:18
To: Steven Faulkner; Arthur Barstow; Cain, Sally; Cynthia Shelly;
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; public-webapps
Subject: Re: Request for Comments on Widgets 1.0 Requirements Last Call
WD
Hi Steve
+1
2008/8/5 Marcos Caceres <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi Steve, Cynthia, and Sally,
>
> On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 12:54 AM, Steven Faulkner
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hi Marcos and Arthur, thanks for taking the comments into account.
>
> No probs. Thanks for taking the time to provide them.
>
>> ca
Hi Steve, Cynthia, and Sally,
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 12:54 AM, Steven Faulkner
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Marcos and Arthur, thanks for taking the comments into account.
No probs. Thanks for taking the time to provide them.
> can I suggest the last part:
> "The user interface language MUST
Hi Marcos and Arthur, thanks for taking the comments into account.
can I suggest the last part:
"The user interface language MUST also be accessible to screen
readers, allowing relevant sections of text and functionality to be
accessed by non-visual means."
be replaced with something like:
"The
Art, Sally, Steve, All
On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 9:07 PM, Arthur Barstow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sally, Steve, All
>
> FYI, Cynthia Shelly [CS] submitted comments that are similar to the ones you
> submitted regarding requirement #37 [37] of the Widgets Requirement LC WD
> [LC].
>
> Both Marcos
Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Steven Faulkner
Sent: 31 July 2008 14:21
To: Arthur Barstow
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ext Marcos Caceres
Subject: Re: Request for Comments on Widgets 1.0 Requirements Last
Call
WD
The current spec states:
"R
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: ext Marcos Caceres
Subject: Fwd: Request for Comments on Widgets 1.0 Requirements Last Call
WD
This is a reminder August 1 is the end of the comment period for the
Widgets 1.0 Requirements Last Call Working Draft.
-Regards, Art Barstow
Begin forwarded message:
>
21 matches
Mail list logo
