On Wed, 13 Apr 2005, Olav Junker Kjær wrote:
> >
> > There's no use case for this. It just has to be defined so that we get
> > interoperable behaviour, otherwise every UA will end up doing
> > something different.
>
> Yes, I understand your reluctance to have unspecified behavior. I think
> it
Generally, I think the short usage notes improves the spec a lot.
Suddely the javascript: date: and file: schemes make sense to me!
> There's no use case for this. It just has to be defined so that we get
> interoperable behaviour, otherwise every UA will end up doing
> something different.
Yes,
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005, Olav Junker Kjær wrote:
>
> Some feature in WF2 for which the use cases are not immediately obvious:
>
> - the output element and the readonly attribute. Its not obvious why we
> need both, and when you should use which.
I have added a usage note in the section to help ans
Dean Jackson wrote:
On 13 Apr 2005, at 19:31, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005, Dean Jackson wrote:
Ok. Could you provide us with a list of features you believe need use
cases listed? That would be really helpful in creating such a
document.
All of them.
That's never going to happen, just l
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005, Dean Jackson wrote:
> >
> > That's never going to happen, just like the XHTML working group has
> > never published a document with use cases for all their features.
> > Ditto the SVG group,
>
> The SVG group has published requirements documents for its features. So
> has
On 13 Apr 2005, at 19:31, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005, Dean Jackson wrote:
Ok. Could you provide us with a list of features you believe need use
cases listed? That would be really helpful in creating such a
document.
All of them.
That's never going to happen, just like the XHTML working
Ian Hickson wrote:
Ok. Could you provide us with a list of features you believe need use
cases listed? That would be really helpful in creating such a document.
Some feature in WF2 for which the use cases are not immediately obvious:
- the output element and the readonly attribute. Its not obvious
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005, Dean Jackson wrote:
> >
> > Ok. Could you provide us with a list of features you believe need use
> > cases listed? That would be really helpful in creating such a
> > document.
>
> All of them.
That's never going to happen, just like the XHTML working group has never
pub
On 13 Apr 2005, at 18:26, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005, Jim Ley wrote:
Then please publish a seperate requirements document that does list
[the use cases].
Ok. Could you provide us with a list of features you believe need use
cases listed? That would be really helpful in creating such a d
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005, Jim Ley wrote:
>
> Then please publish a seperate requirements document that does list
> [the use cases].
Ok. Could you provide us with a list of features you believe need use
cases listed? That would be really helpful in creating such a document.
Thanks!
--
Ian Hickson
On 4/12/05, Ian Hickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2. Providing comprehensive use cases and requirements. This doesn't really
> belong in a spec, so I don't think we should change the spec to include
> them.
Then please publish a seperate requirements document that does list
them. I'm sure
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> >
> > We'll be publishing another call for comments that takes into account
> > the technical comments that W3C staff sent to us privately as very
> > soon.
>
> I saw a call for comments has already been published but not yet
> announced. Is that
12 matches
Mail list logo
