W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > October 2003

RE: Action item on the virtues of error-handling

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 11:42:23 -0700
To: "'Walden Mathews'" <waldenm@optonline.net>, "'Dan Connolly'" <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <00e801c398cc$3c3dcfa0$6701a8c0@beasys.com>

> The presence of the language: "the installed base of HTML user agents"
> makes the "must" interpretation infeasible.  Would the spec
> be requiring
> something of an "installed base"?

The text preceeding the :

"To facilitate experimentation and interoperability between
   implementations of various versions of HTML, the installed base of
   HTML user agents supports a superset of the HTML 2.0 language by
   reducing it to HTML 2.0:"

Provides a purpose (to facilitate ..) and a description of a mechanism to
support the purpose (by reducing it to).  Maybe it could have been worded a
bit better "HTML user agents support a superset..." but I still think that
does not diminish the (what I call) must ignore rule following the colon.

I think that "the installed base" phrase is probably irrelevent because the
installed base of HTML user agents is the set of user agents that are in
existance at any given time. And an HTML user agent is a user agent that is
compliant with HTML.  So "installed base" as part of mechanism description
doesn't take away from the actual conformance test.

Further, I believe the text before the colon supports my position that
experimentation (evolution/exensibility) are desirable properties and are
acheived by a must ignore rule, which is described after the colon.

Received on Wednesday, 22 October 2003 14:42:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:40 UTC