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/
