Re: CR issues disposition

Hello Björn,

The WG discussed the issue you raised during its F2F two weeks ago, and
have been asked to make sure the Working Group is now understanding it
correctly.

> My concern however is that, if you want to know what is considered a
> Valid XML document you can check that in the XML 1.0 Recommendation
> where it is well-defined how to determine whether a document complies
> with these constraints or not. If you want to know what a Valid HTML
> 4.01 document is, you can check the HTML 4.01 Recommendation and find
> that it does not define it. This yields in numerous problems, namely
> that there is disagreement about the definition.

Our understanding is that you want the SpecGL to insist on the need to
define labels going along with conformance, i.e. that a specification
should create a well-defined label to designate an implementation
conforming to it in one of the specified ways.

As you noted, the latest version of SpecGL published has some relevant
bits:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-qaframe-spec-20040602/#define-terms
"
Define conformance concepts, designations
Examples: valid, well-formed, foo-conformant, document conformance
(CC/PP) consumer conformance (CC/PP)
"

We plan to improve this section to address the specific concern you
raised, but want to make sure first that we understood your issue
correctly this time :)

Thanks,

Dom
-- 
Dominique Hazaël-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/
W3C/ERCIM
mailto:dom@w3.org