W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org > October to December 2000

Re: XML Linking Implementation Questionnaire

From: <jose.kahan@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 15:56:10 +0200 (MET DST)
Message-Id: <200010191356.PAA26434@tuvalu.inrialpes.fr>
To: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
CC: www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org

I just talked with DanielV. I agree that our implementation is not conformant
to the XPointer spec according to its criteria: we only implement some of
the XPointer functions (what we need in the annotation application) and the
spec says all the functions must be implemented (section 5.4).

On the other hand, the only way I could find out the conformance criteria
was by doing a word search on the document using the keywords given in
section 3. I have an idea of what is mandatory now, but I can't say I'm
100% sure if it's the whole spec or just some parts of it.

A more explicit conformance section, such as the one given in the SVG
spec[1] would have been made this clearer, for example by summarizing all
the functions and things (without going into detail) that are required,
optional, and so on.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/conform.html



In our previous episode, Paul Grosso said:
> At 16:01 2000 10 18 +0200, jose.kahan@w3.org wrote:
> >	    XML Linking Implementation Questionnaire
> >	    ========================================
> How can one claim conformance if the technology only implements a small
> part of the spec?
Received on Thursday, 19 October 2000 09:56:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:32:22 UTC