- From: <david_marston@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 13:08:22 -0500
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, www-qa-wg@w3.org
- Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com
>> How did you demonstrate the existence of more than one conformant >> (and presumably interoperable) implementations? >As I understand it (as a close observer from the outside), the group >saw itself as defining a language/data-format, not any particular >software at all. It wasn't really clear how interoperability could be >demontrated. My presumption is that if the class of product being defined is a language, then the WG issues a schema (or equivalent) for it. You test an instance by trying to validate it against the schema. We seem to be converging on the difference between a simple definition... "The 'em' element indicates the included text content has emphasis." [Whatever "emphasis" might be....] and a specification.... "Text within the 'em' element must be rendered by the browser in a form that is more prominent than surrounding non-emphasized text." The specification could then provide a non-exhaustive list of some techniques that would be deemed to satisfy the "more prominent" criterion. Some of them might be detectable by a machine and some not. The test suite can be flexible about measurement techniques. .................David Marston
Received on Wednesday, 7 January 2004 13:10:59 UTC