W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapi@w3.org > June 2006

Re: [Window] Conforming content

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 02:20:23 -0700
Message-Id: <7554B9FD-A097-4C66-9CE7-DF82D7B332B3@apple.com>
Cc: public-webapi@w3.org
To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>

On Jun 1, 2006, at 1:03 AM, Chris Lilley wrote:

> Hello public-webapi,
> In the Window spec, I see conformance for implementations but not  
> for content. Would a conformance category for conforming content  
> (ie scripts) be useful?

Not clear. There are two issues that make this different from markup  
or stylesheet content conformance:

1) Scripts generally use more than one API in combination, for  
instance freely mixing interfaces from Window 1.0, DOM Level 2 Core,  
DOM Level 2 Events, and common but nonstandard extensions. I'm not  
sure how one would define conforming content in a way that accounts  
for this but does not make the definition vacuous.

2) In the general case it is not possible to make a validator for a  
script using an API; this is equivalent to the halting problem. In  
ECMAScript this is true even for trivial syntactic checks given the  
presense of eval(). That limits the usefulness of stating conformance  

Another important thing to note is that interoperable behavior of  
implementations is still important for content that is "not  
conformant" by whatever rule we may come up with.

Given this, it's unclear how to define content conformance or what  
the practical benefits would be. Implementation conformance has the  
clear potential benefit of improving interoperability of  
implementations and telling authors what guarantees they may rely on.

Received on Thursday, 1 June 2006 09:20:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:21 UTC