[whatwg] More comments and questions on Web Apps 1.0

[Ian Hickson]

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 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

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 
> JavaScript library that implements the whole thing using existing stuff 
> available in browsers. Is this about particular native widgets? About 
> performance?

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.

Ok.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'