W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > December 2002

Re: proposal for LC 385

From: Herve Ruellan <ruellan@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 17:18:24 +0100
Message-ID: <3DEE2AD0.9060901@crf.canon.fr>
To: XMLP Dist App <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

attached mail follows:


David Fallside wrote:
> Proposal to resolve issue 385
> (http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-lc-issues#x385). To the Attachment
> Feature document, add a new section 1.2 "Conformance":
> 
> This document describes an attachment feature which is an abstract model,
> and conformance is a property of binding specifications that use this
> model, rather than of the model itself. Hence, there are no conformance
> requirements associated with the attachment feature described herein.

David,

I think we can define conformance requirements for binding 
specifications or module that implement an attachment feature.

Here is a proposal for taking this into account:

<updated_proposal>
This document describes an attachment feature which is an abstract 
model, and conformance is a property of binding specifications <new>or 
modules</new> that use this model.

A binding specification or a module using this model is conformant if it 
follows all the requirements of this specification (see in particular 6. 
Implementation).
</updated_proposal>

Regards,

Hervé

> 
> ............................................
> David C. Fallside, IBM
> Ext Ph: 530.477.7169
> Int  Ph: 544.9665
> fallside@us.ibm.com
> 
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 4 December 2002 11:18:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:11 GMT