W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa@w3.org > May 2004

Re: Extension/Extensibility examples in W3C Specifications

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 09:27:33 -0400
Message-Id: <F73C97AD-9E97-11D8-B190-000A95718F82@w3.org>
To: www-qa@w3.org

Le 05 mai 2004, à 03:58, Jeremy Carroll a écrit :
> Ideally technology + its extension is conformant with the base spec
>
> e.g.
> XHTML + PoetryML is conformant XHTML


XHTML doesn't exist per se, it's a generic term.
These technologies exist.
	XHTML 1.0
	XHTML 1.1
	XHTML Basic
	XHTML Print
	XHTML Modularization

As I was saying:
> 3. Your PoetryML Module is conformant to regards to the conformance  
> Rules of XHTML Modularization.

XHTML 1.1 + PoetryML is conformant to XHTML Modularization because both  
are based on it in a conformant way.

It's even more precisely fall in
	XHTML Host Language Document Type Conformance
	http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xhtml-modularization-20010410/xhtml- 
modularization.html#s_conform_document_type

-- 
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager
*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***

Received on Wednesday, 5 May 2004 09:53:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 12:14:00 GMT