W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > January 2009

Re: Extensibility and Uniformity; defining "error" behavior

From: Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress <rden@loc.gov>
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 10:09:52 -0500
Message-ID: <013e01c97010$d3d09660$18af938c@lib.loc.gov>
To: <www-tag@w3.org>

"The CSS Working Group defined 'interoperability' as the ability to
pass certain tests with a well defined result. The CSS 2.1 definition
of "interoperability" is closely tight to the needs of CSS 2.1 and
serves this purpose well. I do not think that generalizing it is
appropriate. I also do not think that it is worth the effort to enter
the renaming game and relabel 'interoperability' to 'conformance'
or 'foo'."

I don't see it as playing games to take issue with what one sees as misuse 
of a term. (And I don't suggest relabeling "interoperability" to 
"conformance". And certainly not to "foo".)

It isn't my intent to prolonge this debate, I simply would like to register 
my dissent over defining interoperability as "the ability to pass certain 
tests with a well defined result".  "Interoperability"  is an important and 
well-understood word in standards, and mis-using it will cause confusion.

Without defining interoperability, I expect you would agree that simple 
word-component analysis would immediately lead one first to deduce that it 
means "the ability to interoperate", reducing the task to defining 
"interoperate".   And "interoperate" is "inter" + "operarate".  Nevermind 
defining "operate";  "inter" implies multiple entities. What are the 
multiple entities involved in the CSS  definition?

If instead you had defined *operability*    (rather than "interoperability) 
as "the ability to
pass certain tests with a well defined result".  I would have no problem.

--Ray

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rigo Wenning" <rigo@w3.org>
To: "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>
Cc: "Larry Masinter" <masinter@adobe.com>; "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>; 
<www-tag@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 3:19 AM
Subject: Re: Extensibility and Uniformity; defining "error" behavior
Received on Tuesday, 6 January 2009 15:10:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:10 GMT