IDE Minutes 2010 02 08

From MemberWiki

Jump to: navigation, search




  • Kin Blas, Adobe
  • Lori Hylan-Cho
  • Bertrand Le Roy, Microsoft
  • Jon Ferraiolo, IBM
  • Javier Pedemonte, IBM



outputFormat and outputDefault examples

==> Note asking WG to review new section with details and examples for outputFormat and outputDefault

==> A couple of notes regarding example changes versus Kin's emails

Kin: I'll need to study those sections offline

Introduction chapter

==> Note saying "This is new. WG should review"

Jon: I moved some language from the Substitution chapter into a new section here because there are multiple places where software needs to take into account and avoid XSS problems, not just Substitution. A couple of wording tweaks, but it's basically the same text.

Kin: I don't see anything wrong.

Javier: Looks fine.

RESOLUTION: New section on security is OK.

==> Note saying "This is new. WG should review"

Jon: I added this section because I realized that people reading the spec might not figure out what those schema snippet sections were about. This new section is similar to previous section explaining our use of JSDoc. Any problems?

Kin: JSDoc write-up walks through the example. Do we need something like that?

Jon: Would be helpful to add a couple of bullet points.

Kin: Explain how we should mentally parse that.

Jon: Yes, that makes sense. I'll do it and send email for people to review.

RESOLUTION: New section on RNC is OK, except Jon needs to add text that walks through example. Send email when completed.

Properties chapter

Minor changes within <property> element section

==> Notes asking WG to review detailed write-ups about outputFormat and outputDefault

==> Notes asking WG to review revised text for 'sharedAs attribute

Lori: Change the link to say "Details about ...". Otherwise, confusing.

Jon: OK

Kin: Both sections are fine

Jon: Anyone else?

Lori: The two attribute write-ups look exactly the same

Jon: One says "does not supply" and the other says "supplies". Should I italicize?

Lori: Or bold

Datatypes chapter

==> Note asking WG to review recent changes so that format options align exactly with latest proposals to OpenSocial Foundation

==> A couple of notes where Lori says she will do some editorial cleanups

Jon: I updated the 'format' attribute descriptions for the date, time and timestamp to match the latest proposals worked out in discussion with OpenSocial Foundation so that both specs would match. In particular, the raw datatypes have changed from "Date" to "String". Also, changed references to whatever RFC we were using to ECMA5 because ECMA5 was approved in December.

Kin: My one problem with the link is that it is a PDF. Hard to find the reference.

Jon: I could include a section name within the PDF.

Kin: That would be good.

Jon: There isn't an HTML version of the spec.

Kin: OK

Jon: Other comments on the format table?

Bertand: Just for serialization as JSON?

Jon: Right

Bertrand: OK


Lori: I have no idea how to rewrite these sections. Just take out the red comments. My brain isn't in that space any more.

Jon: Fine with me.

Kin: Isn't it just about being able to supply multiple values

Lori: The MUSTs were confusing

Jon: I'll take a look at it and see if there is a better way to express the ideas

<require> 'target' examples

Kin: I will have to take a look offline. Would be good for others to look as a sanity check


Kin: I'll get back today on the reviews

Lori: I might be able to look at them

Jon: Maybe I'll look at the new sections this week

Jon: Then I'll start the formal approval process on the spec

Personal tools