W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom@w3.org > January to March 2000

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

From: Glenn Adams <gadams@vgi.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 14:25:19 -0500
To: <www-dom@w3.org>
Cc: <plehegar@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000101bf98eb$5b4e0700$2d020001@neo.vgi.com>

If I may offer a bit of word-smithing, I'd suggest the following:

Replace the introduction sentence in 5.2 with the following:

"The interfaces found within this section are not mandatory. A DOM application can use the hasFeature method of the DOMImplementation interface to determine whether they are supported or not. The feature string for all the CSS fundamental interfaces listed in this section is "CSS"."

Then, in 5.3, after the first paragraph, add the following:

"If the CSS extended interfaces listed in this section are supported, then the CSS fundamental interefaces are mandatory and the hasFeature method of the DOMImplementation interface must return true for the feature string "CSS"."

Regards,
Glenn

-----Original Message-----
From: plehegar@w3.org [mailto:plehegar@w3.org]On Behalf Of Philippe Le
Hegaret
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 1:52 PM
To: Glenn Adams
Cc: www-dom@w3.org
Subject: 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.
Received on Tuesday, 28 March 2000 14:25:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 22 June 2012 06:13:47 GMT