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

Re: ACTION-446: Conformance model

From: Yngve N. Pettersen (Developer Opera Software ASA) <yngve@opera.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 00:33:47 +0200
To: "Thomas Roessler" <tlr@w3.org>, mzurko@us.ibm.com, steele@adobe.com, johnath@mozilla.com
Cc: public-wsc-wg@w3.org, pbaker@verisign.com, stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie
Message-ID: <op.uclvml0pqrq7tp@nimisha.oslo.opera.com>

I am not sure about the use of "applications" in this sentence: " e.g.  
through the addition or removal of these applications or features". I  
suspect what you want to address here is modifying the behavior of, or  
addition or removal of features in the application using the plugin.

Otherwise it looks OK

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 20:04:41 +0200, Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org> wrote:

> Hello,
> 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:
>   http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/drafts/rec/rewrite.html#Conformance
> 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
>      strong,
>    * 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.
> Thanks,

Yngve N. Pettersen
Senior Developer                     Email: yngve@opera.com
Opera Software ASA                   http://www.opera.com/
Phone:  +47 24 16 42 60              Fax:    +47 24 16 40 01
Received on Wednesday, 11 June 2008 22:41:33 UTC

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