W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg-ct@w3.org > November 2008

RE: [CTG] Draft 2008-11-07 / inconsistencies / validation

From: Eduardo Casais <casays@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 04:17:04 -0800 (PST)
To: public-bpwg-ct@w3.org
Message-ID: <748138.59349.qm@web45005.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

> Consequently, in order to satisfy the need to give
> excellent end-user experiences, we must (sadly) adjust
> our adapted output to suit the quirks of the requesting
> device, thus addressing the bugs/features that
> we know to be present.

You are actually raising two points:
a) extensions to existing standards (i.e. additional features that are not captured by standard W3C, IETF, etc formal specifications);
b) errors, i.e. deviations from the supposedly supported formal specifications.

Regarding point (a), vendors usually make available a formal definition of their extended features (otherwise how would developers use them?), but we can admit that there is no general guarantee that there is a published formal specification that can be used for validation.

Regarding point (b), you are thinking about issues like, say, a browser that accepts <p> inside <div> but not otherwise, although this is possible as per (X)HTML DTD. This is the nasty part, and I agree this is usually deduced from  testing, not from some formal spec. 

Can we state that the transformed content returned to the terminal must at least be well-formed (following XML terminology)?

E.Casais


      
Received on Tuesday, 11 November 2008 12:18:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 11 November 2008 12:18:28 GMT