[whatwg] More comments and questions on Web Apps 1.0

[Henri Sivonen]

On Jun 1, 2007, at 02:31, Ian Hickson wrote:

> On Mon, 20 Mar 2006, Henri Sivonen wrote:
>>
>> 1.14.1.
>> The style and script elements in XHTML have a potentially anything  
>> goes
>> content model. Would it be appropriate for a conformance checker  
>> to only
>> pass style and script types it knows about (with the proper content
>> model for each type)?
>
> I would expect a conformance checker to have a "could not validate"  
> mode
> which was between "no" and "yes", though presented more like "no",  
> for the
> state where there was no actual error, but something that normally  
> can be
> checked couldn't be verified for whatever reason.

OK.

>> 2.14.1.1.
>> The spec should probably mention
>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hoehrmann-script- 
>> types-03.txt or its
>> successor around here.
>
> I have no idea which section that was, nor which RFC that is (the  
> URI is
> now dead). Is there an updated link?

The section is now 3.17.1.1. Script languages. (The section numbering  
in the email you quoted is from the 2006-02-24 revision of the spec.)

The linked draft has become http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4329

>> 2.20.1.
>> When I read this, I had trouble organizing (in my mind) what I was  
>> reading
>> because I had no prior understanding of where the spec was going.  
>> Up to this
>> point, I had had prior hypotheses that were confirmed or  
>> disconfirmed by the
>> spec. This section would be a lot easier to read if it had an  
>> introductionary
>> paragraph stating the relationship of rendering, the DOM, the data  
>> model
>> object and data submission. (Is the DOM being rendered or is a  
>> replaced widget
>> element being rendered? Is it stylable? Is the data model  
>> reflected back to
>> the DOM? What's the expected way of serializing the data model and  
>> sending it
>> back to the server?)
>
> I don't know which section this is talking about.

It was about <datagrid>.

> Is it better now?

I think the non-normative intro section still doesn't sufficiently  
cover the relationship to the DOM and the CSS frame tree.

>> 2.20.1.
>> Also, I wondered whether this functionality is best specced as  
>> part of the UA
>> or whether it would be better to ship it as a MIT/expat-licensed  
>> pure-JS
>> library for running on top of the lower-level JS/DOM APIs. (Note:  
>> Considering
>> what I wrote above, I don't really understand what the aims are,  
>> so I may be
>> totally missing the point.)
>
> Not sure what you mean.

It wasn't clear to me why the spec specified datagrid as part of  
required UA functionality instead of e.g. Google shipping an Open  
Source JavaScript library that implements the whole thing using  
existing stuff available in browsers. Is this about particular native  
widgets? About performance?

>> 2.20.1.3.
>> I had trouble trying to extract markup-level conformance  
>> requirements for
>> stuff that can occur inside the datagrid.
>
> It's just any block-level content. Why was it unclear?

I thought there might be a requirement that the content made sense as  
a data model.

> Do you think it should be further restricted?

Not necessary, I guess.

>> 4.5.
>> Is onerror only a DOM attribute or is it a markup attribute as  
>> well? Whose
>> attribute is it?
>
> Is this defined to your satisfaction now?

Yes. Thanks.

-- 
Henri Sivonen
hsivonen at iki.fi
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/