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.
There is a difference between an 'unsupported'/'unavailable' feature as
'foo:bar' in your example and an 'invalid feature name' as in the test-suite
example:
<widget>
<name>d4</name>
<feature name="invalid feature IRI" required="true"/>
</widget>
I'm not asking that 'unsupported'/'unavailable' features are ignored as
indeed this would contradict the default value of 'required'. I'm asking
that 'invalid' feature are ignored (whether they are required or not). This
would be consistent with the rest of the spec.
If a feature is required by the widget, and it isn't available for any
reason (including an invalid IRI) then its reasonable for the UA to assume
this Widget just won't work and reject it. It may simply be a typo, e.g.:
<feature name="http;//bondi.omtp.org/api/camera.capture" required="true"/>
^ typo!
I don't think it would be useful for this to silently fail.
FWIW, I agree with Scott. However, Cyril's point is valid in the the
behavior is a bit inconstant with the spec... but, as Scott has shown
through his example, it's with good reason.
Now that I understand the rationale, I'm fine to leave it as is. It just means
that the spec will not be extensible to features not named with IRI. I don't
know if in Robin's v27 of the spec, there won't be a different way to name
features.
Regards,
Cyril
--
Cyril Concolato
Maître de Conférences/Associate Professor
Groupe Mutimedia/Multimedia Group
Telecom ParisTech
46 rue Barrault
75 013 Paris, France
http://concolato.blog.telecom-paristech.fr/
