Re: DOM-2 CSS Module Inclusion -- Conformance/Compliance

Glenn Adams wrote:
> 
> In Document Object Model (DOM) Level 2 Specification, Version 1.0, W3C
> Candidate Recommendation 07 March, 2000, under Section 5.2 CSS Fundamental
> Interfaces appears the following:
> 
> "The interfaces within this section are considered fundamental, and must be
> supported by all conforming DOM implementations."
> 
> In contrast, in "What is the Document Object Model?" under "Compliance", one
> finds:
> 
> "A compliant implementation of the DOM must implement all of the fundamental
> interfaces in the Core chapter with the semantics as defined. Further, it
> must implement at least one of the HTML DOM and the extended (XML) interfaces
> with the semantics as defined. The other modules are optional."
> 
> There seems to be a conflict between these two statements, with the former
> requiring the CSS module and the latter making it optional. Also, the former
> uses the term "conformance" while the latter uses the term "compliance". Is
> there something I'm missing here?

The sentence in section 5.2 should be :
"The interfaces within this section are considered fundamental,
and must be supported by all compliant DOM implementations with
CSS support."


Philippe.