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

Re: XML Linking Implementation Questionnaire

From: Eve L. Maler <eve.maler@East.Sun.COM>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 11:06:14 -0400
Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.2.20001019110009.02681a00@abnaki.east.sun.com>
To: jose.kahan@w3.org
Cc: www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org
Jose, your comments about the conformance situation being clearer in the 
questionnaire are well-taken.  However, I had thought it was pretty clear 
in the conformance sections of the XLink and XPointer specs.  I'm a little 
wary of restating the fundamental "musts" and "shoulds" in the conformance 
section because it will be a "non-normative" description (since it 
restates, possibly inaccurately, information found elsewhere).

In any case, we can add this as an issue and discuss it.  Thanks for the 
feedback!

         Eve

At 03:56 PM 10/19/00 +0200, jose.kahan@w3.org wrote:
>Paul,
>
>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
>
>Regards,
>
>-Jose
>
>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?

--
Eve Maler                                          +1 781 442 3190
Sun Microsystems XML Technology Center    eve.maler @ east.sun.com
Received on Thursday, 19 October 2000 12:35:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:39:41 GMT