W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > December 2008

Re: Extensibility and Uniformity; defining "error" behavior

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 20:10:14 +0100
To: "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>, "Shane McCarron" <shane@aptest.com>
Cc: "Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress" <rden@loc.gov>, "Larry Masinter" <masinter@adobe.com>, "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.umzovcxb64w2qv@annevk-t60.oslo.opera.com>

On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 18:57:07 +0100, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote:
> +2  I've always understood the word in more or less Larry's sense.  
> However, it don't see (contra other comments) that the criteria in  
> http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/#crec   are necessarily at odds with Larry's  
> definition. This refers to test suites, which are collections of  
> examples provided by a specs authors which are used to illustrate  
> required or expected interoperation behaviors, such as not crashing or  
> delivering a certain type of response under certain conditions. The RDF  
> and OWL test suites, for example, consisted largely of example parsings,  
> entailments and non-entailments appropriate for fragments of RDF and OWL  
> syntax. None of this requires uniformity of the user agent's  
> implementation, only in certain aspects of its behavior (those required  
> for interoperability, in fact.)

Well, if you see it like that than Ian also simply means  
"interoperability" as the idea is that HTML5 roughly follows the CSS 2.1  
model here.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Tuesday, 30 December 2008 19:24:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:09 GMT