W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-commits@w3.org > October 2010

html5/spec Overview.html,1.4481,1.4482

From: Ian Hickson via cvs-syncmail <cvsmail@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 06:53:27 +0000
To: public-html-commits@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1P5Yjn-0003Ln-W3@lionel-hutz.w3.org>
Update of /sources/public/html5/spec
In directory hutz:/tmp/cvs-serv12835

Modified Files:
Log Message:
try to clarify the applicable spec stuff (whatwg r5605)

Index: Overview.html
RCS file: /sources/public/html5/spec/Overview.html,v
retrieving revision 1.4481
retrieving revision 1.4482
diff -u -d -r1.4481 -r1.4482
--- Overview.html	12 Oct 2010 06:34:51 -0000	1.4481
+++ Overview.html	12 Oct 2010 06:53:22 -0000	1.4482
@@ -2964,6 +2964,16 @@
   this specification.</p>
   <!-- http://www.w3.org/mid/17E341CD-E790-422C-9F9A-69347EE01CEB@iki.fi -->
+  <p class="note">Someone could write a specification that defines any
+  arbitrary byte stream as conforming, and then claim that their
+  random junk is conforming. However, that does not mean that their
+  random junk actually is conforming for everyone's purposes: if
+  someone else decides that that specification does not apply to their
+  work, then they can quite legitimately say that the aforementioned
+  random junk is just that, junk, and not conforming at all. As far as
+  conformance goes, what matters in a particular community is what
+  that community <em>agrees</em> is applicable.</p>
   <hr><p>User agents must treat elements and attributes that they do not
   understand as semantically neutral; leaving them in the DOM (for DOM
   processors), and styling them according to CSS (for CSS processors),
Received on Tuesday, 12 October 2010 06:53:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:10:09 UTC