W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swd-wg@w3.org > August 2008

ISSUE-126: CR Comment: conformance for markup, a processor, or both?

From: SWD Issue Tracker <dean+cgi@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 18:38:08 +0000 (GMT)
To: public-swd-wg@w3.org,public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org
Message-Id: <20080828183808.432EB5F74D@stu.w3.org>


ISSUE-126: CR Comment: conformance for markup, a processor, or both?

http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/126

Raised by: Ralph Swick
On product: RDFa

In [1] Noah Mendelsohn writes

  "I tend to feel that specification of a lanuage and its mapping
  to things like default graphs is quite a different thing from
  the specification of a piece of software with certain required
  outputs.  ...

  "Thus my preference, and its only a preference, would be to
  see the definition of default graph retained for reference
  by other specifications, but the definition of processor
  conformance moved either to a separate document or perhaps
  to a normative appendix of the syntax and processing document.
  I think a more appropriate title for such a section might be:
  "Conformance requirements for general purpose RDFa processors" ..."

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Aug/0104.html
Received on Thursday, 28 August 2008 18:38:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:07:54 UTC