- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 14:51:51 -0800
- To: Steve K Speicher <sspeiche@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: public-cdf@w3.org
On Mar 8, 2006, at 7:49 AM, Steve K Speicher wrote: > Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote on 01/02/2006 05:07:07 AM: > >> Appendix B (Conformance Criteria) does not include any meaningful, >> testable conformance criteria for user agents. >> >> "Conformant user agent must implement DOM Level 3 Core interfaces." >> >> - This and other statements in this section should be rewritten to >> start with "A conformant user agent" or "Conformant user agents", it >> is ungrammatical as written. > > Changed. Thanks. >> - The body of the spec says DOM Level 3 Core subsets are allowed, but >> this calls specifically for L3Core. What is the intent? It sould be >> made clear in all places. Also, it may be more clear to just say >> "must implement DOM Level 3 Core", since it adds nothing to say >> "interfaces". Also, if a subset (any subset) is allowed, then this >> criterion means nothing and is not testable. > > How about this rewording: > "A conformant user agent must implement DOM Level 3 Core, either > full or a > profiled subset." I think it would have to define what counts as a profiled subset. May anyone define the profile? Does it have to be defined by a W3C spec? Does DOM Level 2 Core count as a profiled subset of DOM Level 3 Core? Does SVG uDOM (the core-related part) count? I think this criterion is still not testable as written. >> "Conformant user agent must implement DOM Level 3 Event interfaces." >> >> - same comments as above >> > > Likewise: > "A conformant user agent must implement DOM Level 3 Events, either > full or > a profiled subset." Same comments as above. > >> "Conformant user agent must support specialized DOM interfaces >> required by the profile." >> >> - Surely this requirement should be called for by the profiles >> themselves. It's weird for a spec to demand conformance with >> unspecified other specs. Also, since no specific interfaces are >> required, this criterion is not testable. >> > > This as been removed from the "User Agent Conformance" section. > >> "Conformant user agent must support ReferencedDocument interface." >> >> - Since the body of the spec makes this a "may" and even then >> declines to state what particular objects should implement this >> interface, this is not a testable conformance criterion. >> > > This has been removed. [1] > >> "Conformant user agent must support ReferencingElement interface." >> >> - Since the body of the spec makes this a "may" and even then >> declines to state what particular objects should implement this >> interface, this is not a testable conformance criterion. >> > > This has been removed. [1] > >> "Conformant user agent must support DocumentEventPropagation >> interface." >> >> - Since the body of the spec declines to state what particular >> objects should implement this interface, this is not a testable >> conformance criterion. > > This has been removed, since the associated interface is being > removed. > > [1] These conformance clauses will be updated to require compliance > to the > forthecoming "Windows Object" specification from the Web APIs WG. Sounds good. > Thanks for your comments. Please let us know within 2 weeks if > this does > not address your comment. I am satisfied with the specific resolutions for these comments, but I think Appendix B is still problematic. It sounds like the only conformance requirements will be requirements to implement other specs (L3 Core, L3 Events, Window). Maybe that's ok to publish, but it doesn't sound all that useful to have a spec that is just a laundry list of other specs. Regards, Maciej
Received on Wednesday, 8 March 2006 22:51:57 UTC