[whatwg] More comments and questions on Web Apps 1.0
ian at hixie.ch
Thu May 31 23:34:33 PDT 2007
On Fri, 1 Jun 2007, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> > 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 22.214.171.124. 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
Ah, indeed, that would be a good place to reference that. Noted.
> > > 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.
The relationship to CSS will all be in the rendering section.
I guess I don't really know what you think is needed in the intro section,
I'm probably too close to it. Could you write some questions that you
think an intro section should answer?
> 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
> available in browsers. Is this about particular native widgets? About
Both of those, but also simply semantics (spelt "accessibility" for
political correctness reasons).
> I thought there might be a requirement that the content made sense as a
> data model.
I think that would be excessive. It might be a good idea, though.
> > Do you think it should be further restricted?
> Not necessary, I guess.
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
More information about the whatwg