W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > May 2007

Re: Cleaning House

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 02:33:13 -0700
Message-Id: <209C9E71-91AD-466B-AAA4-05785D0719F3@apple.com>
Cc: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, public-html@w3.org
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

On May 4, 2007, at 2:19 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> Lachlan Hunt wrote:
>> Julian Reschke wrote:
>>> Speaking of which, I'm not really sure why the UA parsing  
>>> requirements with respect to processing invalid content need to  
>>> be normative at all. As far as I can tell, there's really no need  
>>> to make them normative.
>> If you don't make the processing requirements normative, then UAs  
>> can just implement whatever they like and claim conformance.  That  
>> doesn't help anyone at all, it just leaves us with the same  
>> situation we're in now.  We're trying to fix the problem, not just  
>> ignore it.
> If the processing requirements are written and agreed upon, and  
> implemented by Apple/MS/Mozilla/Opera, it really makes no  
> difference in practice what normative status they have.

If you think it makes no difference, then perhaps you could let those  
who think it does make a difference get their preference.

I think it makes a difference because it only makes sense to write a  
conformance test suite for normative conformance requirements; you  
can't test an informative note. To actually achieve interoperability  
will require an extensive test suite which requires making processing  
requirements normative for some conformance class.

Received on Friday, 4 May 2007 09:33:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:20 UTC