- From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 01:41:27 +1000
- To: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- CC: tina@greytower.net, www-html@w3.org, public-html@w3.org
Shane McCarron wrote: > Lachlan Hunt wrote: >> This seems to be the source of contention in the current debate. For >> the spec to be implementable, it needs to define conformance >> requirements for UAs, including error handling and how to handle both >> existing and future content. > > Perhaps if those implementation conformance constraints were defined in > a separate specification, it would help to clearly divide the issue? I do not think it is a good idea to remove the user agent requirements from a spec for which we actually intend to get implementations. > In the case of XHTML 2 the plan was always to have an implementors guide What exactly is an implementers guide? Would that contain normative requirements, or just be an informative note? > that went along with it to provide the sort of information I think you > are talking about; but without confusing the authoring community with a > lot of data that, frankly, is very domain specific. Specifications are aimed more at implementers than they are at authors, simply because it is vital that the spec can actually be implemented. Book, tutorials and resources can be tailored to be more suitable for authors. -- Lachlan Hunt http://lachy.id.au/
Received on Wednesday, 2 May 2007 15:41:39 UTC