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

RE: Best practice for referring to specifications which may update

From: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 14:29:29 +0000
To: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
CC: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com>
Message-ID: <267F18971244A34BA58D684E5EAA4E6F0442535E@TK5EX14MBXC141.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
> All of the above formulations assume a definition of
> 'implementation-dependent' along the following lines:

> If a choice is described as 'implementation-dependent', then
> conformant implementations must document which choice they make.

Editorial comment:

Given that all the formulations actually use the phrase "implementation-defined" and not "implementation-dependent", I believe the above text should replace "implementation-dependent" with "implementation-defined".

> conformant implementations must document which choice they make.

I am not sure there is a clear definition of what a "conformant implementation" is in many W3C Recommendations.  Couldn't you simply drop the word "conformant" from each occurrence of "conformant implementation" everywhere it occurs in your proposal without any impact?   

/paulc

Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329
Received on Thursday, 29 October 2009 14:30:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:18 GMT