W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-cdf@w3.org > July 2006

Conformance inconsistencies

From: Alex Danilo <alex@abbra.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 12:24:31 +1000
Message-Id: <VOI13J.TSLSA5NPJWBL@abbra.com>
To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: "public-cdf@w3.org" <public-cdf@w3.org>

Dear Mark,

	Thank you for your comments relating to the Compound Document 
by Reference Framework 1.0 draft.

	Your first point relating to the use of 'must' has been
taken on board by the CDF Working Group. In accordance we have ensured
that any 'must' statements are represented in the Appendix B
conformance section. I believe all 'must' statements are now consistent
between the body of the document and Appendix B in the most recent
internal draft.

	Also a number of 'must' statements in Appendix B have been
relaxed in response to comments made by other members of the public.

	Your second point relating to the removal of the conformance
section has been discussed at length. It is the CDF Working Group's
opinion that removal of the conformance section would effectively
neuter the document. If there is no conformance section, then
anything conforms to the CDR framework. Thus we feel that there
must be some minimal set of conformance criteria for the document
to be useful. Placing all the 'must' statements in a single place
helps developers to enumerate the requirements of building a conformant
implementation. This also ensures that conformance criteria are not
missed when the document is being read by implementors.

	In regards to your point about highlighting the 'must'
statements, it is a good suggestion however in order to maintain
consistency with the format of all existing W3C drafts and
recommendations we have chosen to leave the 'must' words
as is.

	I hope this addresses your comments to your satisfaction.
Should you have any further comments to make regarding these points
please respond to this message within two weeks from todays date.

On behalf of the CDF Working Group, thanks.


--Original message sent by Mark Baker on Mon, 23 Jan 2006:
>The conformance statements listed in Appendix B are inconsistent with
>those in the rest of the document; there are many more "must"
>statements in the prose than appear in Appendix B.
>I recommend removing the conformance section, but also highlighting
>the conformance statements in the prose more clearly (even just by
>using "MUST" in caps - colours would be good too).
Received on Thursday, 27 July 2006 02:22:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:02:21 UTC