W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > October to December 2009

Re: [Bug 7695] Conformance

From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 09:55:44 +0100
To: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com>
Cc: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <f5btyyagt7z.fsf@hildegard.inf.ed.ac.uk>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

C. M. Sperberg-McQueen writes:

> . . .

> I do not remember anyone ever suggesting that minimally conformant
> processors are or should be required to expose the entire PSVI, or
> assuming that position in building other arguments.

I absolutely agree with Michael here.  The distinction between
"generate' or 'implement' on the one hand, and 'expose' on the other,
has always been fundamental.  The changes we made in 1.1, as reflected
in appendix C, were always intended simply to make it easy for
processors to document what they _expose_, not to let them off the
hook as regards implementation.

Accordingly a lot of Noah's message feels to me like a
misunderstanding.  Which is not to say that the various references to
'minimally conforming' and 'conforming' shouldn't be clarified, just
that full PSVI _implementation_ is not at issue for _any_ level of
conformance.

ht
- -- 
       Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
                         Half-time member of W3C Team
      10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
                Fax: (44) 131 651-1426, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
                       URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFKzakVkjnJixAXWBoRAiObAJ9tCgpR3lufWxR/PhgTkU+N9d5JiwCePj3L
hBYFu6vSuvvPlAy4ULiEM6U=
=QvA5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Thursday, 8 October 2009 08:56:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 18:13:17 GMT