W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wsc-wg@w3.org > June 2008

ACTION-446: Conformance model

From: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 20:04:41 +0200
To: mzurko@us.ibm.com, steele@adobe.com, johnath@mozilla.com, yngve@opera.com
Cc: public-wsc-wg@w3.org, pbaker@verisign.com, stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie
Message-ID: <20080611180441.GI272@iCoaster.does-not-exist.org>


again, I'd like those who are explicitly addressed by this message
to specifically review the proposed changes.  Note that this is also
the second part of the algorithm puzzle.

Mez, I'd ask that we put this on the agenda for next week, as I
believe it to be a blocker for last call.

So...  I've redone chapter 3 completely.  You can find it here:


The basic idea is to say:

- there are user agents and plugins. A plugin is really any packaged
  change to a user agent

- here's what it means when you say you conform at the basic level
  (MUST and MUST NOT), this is meant when you conform at the
  advanced level (MUST, SHOULD, MUST NOT, SHOULD NOT)

- here are some additional things you need to disclose when making
  that claim, specifically:
   * what algorithms and protocol versons do you think are weak or
   * and what you consider as an AA certificat

I've tried to define what "plugin" means for conformance purposes,
and would like feedback from Joe and Mez on that part.

I've also done a pass through the spec and thrown out the
"normative" and "informative" remarks which are - since we're going
for RFC 2119 conventions - unnecessary.

The "For example" list of things that we had put into section 4
(interaction and content model) at the face-to-face is a bit of a
problem. It kind of talks about conformance for plugins, but is
really just an example.  As such, it doesn't fit into section 4.

In the conformance section (where I've tentatively put it), I'm
worried that this text is going to be a major source of confusion,
as it appears to enumerate a specific list of features that are
important for plugins, but actually doesn't (since it's just an
example).  I'd therefore propose to strike this text; I suspect that
Mez, Joe and others will have opinions about that.

Thomas Roessler, W3C  <tlr@w3.org>
Received on Wednesday, 11 June 2008 18:05:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:14:21 UTC