- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 14:42:14 -0700
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com>, public-webapi@w3.org
On May 7, 2007, at 10:59 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > > On Mon, 07 May 2007 19:38:15 +0200, Innovimax SARL > <innovimax@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Does it mean a conformant implementation could support NO >>>> version of >>>> XML? >>> >>> Yes, in theory. >> >> Isn't there any possibility to put it other way such that at least >> one >> version must be supported ? > > I'm not sure how that would be an advantage for people using > wanting to implement this API in some obscure language. At some > point when we get responseBody this will become a relatively simple > API to do HTTP stuff with. I don't think we should mandate XML > support for that. It makes sense to support it though, hence it > already is a "SHOULD" for fostering interoperability. Can we define a conformance class for implementations that support XML parsing, so that we can have MUST-level requirements and a test suite for that conformance class? This seems better to me than a SHOULD. Regards, Maciej
Received on Monday, 7 May 2007 21:42:21 UTC