Le 05/01/2010 21:13, Marcos Caceres a écrit :
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 8:50 PM, Marcos Caceresmarc...@opera.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 10:51 AM, Cyril Concolato
cyril.concol...@enst.fr wrote:
Hi all,
There is a test in the test suite for duplicated param element with the same
name but
Le 05/01/2010 23:29, Marcos Caceres a écrit :
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Cyril Concolatocyril.concol...@enst.fr wrote:
Hi all,
I noticed that 9.1.3. Rule for Finding a File Within a Widget Package
indicates that the algorithm returns either a file, null, or an error..
This is not exactly
Le 05/01/2010 23:54, Marcos Caceres a écrit :
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 10:13 AM, Cyril Concolato
cyril.concol...@enst.fr wrote:
Hi,
The test df.wgt contains a feature without name. In this case, the feature
element is ignored and the widget remains valid.
The test d4.wgt contains an invalid
On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 23:41:07 +0100, Tyler Close tyler.cl...@gmail.com
wrote:
I've uploaded an updated version of Uniform Messaging Policy, Level
One to the W3C web site. See:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/UMP/
This version reflects feedback received to date and follows the
document conventions
Marcos,
Le 06/01/2010 10:52, Marcos Caceres a écrit :
On Wednesday, January 6, 2010, Cyril Concolatocyril.concol...@enst.fr wrote:
Le 05/01/2010 23:54, Marcos Caceres a écrit :
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 10:13 AM, Cyril Concolato
cyril.concol...@enst.frwrote:
Hi,
The test df.wgt contains
On 6 Jan 2010, at 08:56, Cyril Concolato wrote:
[snip] 1 fails because we don't implement SNIFF. I don't know if we
will. [snip]
Actually you don't need to implement SNIFF to pass that particular
test, as it only requires you do the extension-processing part of the
algorithm.
See,
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
named4/name
feature name=invalid feature IRI
Le 06/01/2010 11:22, Scott Wilson a écrit :
On 6 Jan 2010, at 08:56, Cyril Concolato wrote:
[snip] 1 fails because we don't implement SNIFF. I don't know if we
will. [snip]
Actually you don't need to implement SNIFF to pass that particular test,
as it only requires you do the
On 6 Jan 2010, at 12:09, Cyril Concolato wrote:
Le 06/01/2010 11:22, Scott Wilson a écrit :
On 6 Jan 2010, at 08:56, Cyril Concolato wrote:
[snip] 1 fails because we don't implement SNIFF. I don't know if we
will. [snip]
Actually you don't need to implement SNIFF to pass that particular
On Jan 6, 2010, at 11:08 , Cyril Concolato wrote:
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
named4/name
feature name=invalid feature IRI required=true/
/widget
On Jan 5, 2010, at 23:29 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
Yeah, admittedly, it got a little messy wrt what defines a rule and
what defines a step... that was me doing crazy literary experiments in
the hope of making the spec easier to read and work with... I wanted
to write rules like they were
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 1:58 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote:
On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 23:41:07 +0100, Tyler Close tyler.cl...@gmail.com
wrote:
I've uploaded an updated version of Uniform Messaging Policy, Level
One to the W3C web site. See:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/UMP/
This
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'
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 3:13 PM, Robin Berjon ro...@berjon.com wrote:
On Jan 6, 2010, at 11:08 , Cyril Concolato wrote:
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
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 9:43 AM, Cyril Concolato
cyril.concol...@enst.fr wrote:
Hi Robin,
Le 18/12/2009 18:01, Robin Berjon a écrit :
On Dec 18, 2009, at 16:36 , Cyril Concolato wrote:
Le 18/12/2009 15:58, Robin Berjon a écrit :
P+C doesn't tie processors to a particular version of XML,
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 9:43 AM, Cyril Concolato
cyril.concol...@enst.fr wrote:
Hi Robin,
Le 18/12/2009 18:01, Robin Berjon a écrit :
On Dec 18, 2009, at 16:36 , Cyril Concolato wrote:
Le 18/12/2009 15:58, Robin Berjon a écrit :
P+C doesn't tie processors to a particular version of XML,
16 matches
Mail list logo
