- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 00:05:15 +0200
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Cc: www-svg@w3.org
On Wednesday, June 21, 2006, 12:40:05 AM, Maciej wrote: MS> On Jun 20, 2006, at 2:24 PM, Chris Lilley wrote: >> No problem. The fact that you believe that SVG Tiny 1.2 does not >> comply with AWWW - a specification that explicitly states that it >> has no conformance criteria - has been duly noted. MS> If that's your point of view on the matter, Its not "my point of view" (although, as one of the authors of AWWW my pov would be relevant, I thought). Its what AWWW says: This document does not include conformance provisions for these reasons: [...] http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#about MS> then why does SVG Tiny 1.2 claim to be in accordance with AWWW? Because "in accordance with" is a form of words that was carefully agreed, as a result of prior review, with several parties including other members of the TAG. It means the design of SVG has been informed by the architectural principles of the AWWW. It does not equate to conformance. One cannot comply with it, but one can be informed by it and design in accordance with it. MS> Wouldn't that be a trivial statement, that is then true of, say, a MS> toaster oven? No, not in the slightest. MS> I don't think Ian was wrong to assume that the statement he objected MS> to was meant to be meaningful. It is meaningful. Also, Ian (being a QA professional) is well aware of the specific definitions of conformance, compliance, and so on. -- Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org Interaction Domain Leader Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group W3C Graphics Activity Lead Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
Received on Wednesday, 21 June 2006 22:05:18 UTC