[Bug 9178] add definition of "conforming document"


Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
                 CC|                            |nrm@arcanedomain.com

--- Comment #5 from Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com> 2010-09-30 21:16:59 UTC ---
Hixie writes:

> if there is a specific issue single that is a reopening
> of the specific issue raised in this bug, please state
> for the record what the issue is

The part of the original issue that I felt was not adequately addressed is
(quoting from 0029 email):

It would be desirable to clarify the applicability of the term "conforming
document" in cases where "applicable specifications" had been used to augment
or change the base HTML5 specification.  I believe that is ultimately a very
important and deep concern that remains unaddressed.  Given the current
ambiguity, someone could write a specification that very radically changes the
HTML5 base, perhaps even maliciously, and claim "oh, mine is an 'applicable
specification', so what you get when you write to my new spec is a 'conforming
HTML5 document'".  Wouldn't it be better to require that such documents be
referred to as "conforming to HTML5 as modified by my-malicious-spec-X" (or in
the more likely example "conforming to HTML5 as modified by

> and reassign the bug to me

Above my pay grade.

> If there are new issues, please
> file new bugs.

Up to you whether this remaining bit is best tracked as new bug.  I'll open one
if that's easier for you.

I've acknowledged that the main concern, I.e. to better define the term
conforming documents, has been addressed (modulo the editorial suggestion that
it be hyperlinked from references).  I am satisfied with the resolution to
that, and I thank you!

> No dismissal of this issue is intended here.

Understood, and much appreciated.  Again, thank you very much.


Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.

Received on Thursday, 30 September 2010 21:17:03 UTC