- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 01:55:07 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7034 --- Comment #27 from Michael(tm) Smith <mike@w3.org> 2010-03-16 01:55:06 --- (In reply to comment #26) > It has frequently been observed that many of the topics expressed as "authoring > conformance" are primarily a matter of "document conformance": a conforming > authoring tool or content generation tool MUST (first and foremost) generate > conforming documents. There may be other requirements for "authoring tool" > conformance as well, such as following accessibility guidelines. > > I think discussion of where "authoring conformance" belongs may be easier to > sort out if the distinction is made more explicit. Agreed. Another example of an authoring-conformance requirement that's not a document-conformance requirement is http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/syntax.html#the-doctype - the "The DOCTYPE legacy string should not be used unless the document is generated from a system that cannot output the shorter string." statement. Granted, that's only a SHOULD-level requirement. But it nevertheless states conformance criteria that is not checkable given a document alone; checking it instead also requires that you have some knowledge of how the document was generated. Anyway, I think as far as making things more explicit, the distinction is that document-conformance requirements can be checked by looking at a document in isolation from however it was generated or in isolation from whoever wrote it. -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 16 March 2010 01:55:09 UTC