On Mon, 31 Jan 2005, Karl Dubost wrote: > > Le 19 janv. 2005, à 09:56, Ian Hickson a écrit : > > Finally I would add one other good practice: specifications should not > > claim to be simple, easy, device-independent, conformant to WAAA or > > QAG, or make other claims about their quality or conformance to other > > specifications. While it is fine to indicate that one of the > > requirements of the specification may have been to be easy / device- > > independent / whatever, it should IMHO be up to the reader to make the > > determination of whether the working group was successful or not. > > If a specification is conformant to something else, it's because… it is. > > For example, if a WG write a specification and find out that they are > conformant to SpecGL after checking with the ICS, why they should not > claim that they are conformant to SpecGL? Because whether they comply is not cut and dry. For example, SVG 1.2 claims to comply to AWWW. But IMHO it doesn't. > Agreed for Easy and simple which are subjective. Great. > SpecGL Conformance criteria are (should be) objective as for Infoset for > example. I have yet to find a specification for which conformance is actually objective! Similarly, I can easily show any UA is non-compliant to any spec it implements, simply by picking tests it fails. If someone uses different tests, then they might show it is conformant. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'Received on Wednesday, 2 February 2005 15:25:17 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:33:52 GMT