Le vendredi 04 février 2005 à 14:04 +0000, Ian Hickson a écrit : > Now, Unicode, QASG, Charmod, and other specifications that other > specifications are likely to claim conformance to are maybe not on that > level of complexity, but I still don't see that it is sensible to claim > conformance to them. Why would anyone _want_ co claim conformance, anyway? For the same reason you want a vendor to say whether its products conforms to such or such specification; when a vendor claims that it is conformant to a specification, you can have certain expectations for that product, and if they're not met, you can get back to the vendor with reports of non-conformance as being bugs in the products. Similarly, some groups in W3C have as success criteria for their deliverables to conform with SepcGL; so we would expect them to claim they conform after they checked they did, and we would report any non-compliance as an issue for the spec. Dom -- Dominique Hazaël-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/ W3C/ERCIM mailto:dom@w3.orgReceived on Friday, 4 February 2005 14:15:30 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:33:52 GMT