- From: Jim Jewett <jimjjewett@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 23:21:55 -0500
- To: "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>
John Kemp wrote: >> OK, that sounds as if the processing requirements for each conformance >> class could be in one (or more) separate documents from the language >> syntax specification. Ian wrote: > Well, some of the conformance classes need the language syntax > requirements. I think everyone agrees that the processing requirements would rely on the syntax specification -- the point is that the syntax specification does not need to rely on the processing requirements. But to be honest, I think part of the disagreement is that many people (myself included) don't think the the processing requirements really rely all that *heavily* on the syntax. > For example, a WYSIWYG editor would need to know both the > syntax and vocabulary conformacne requirments, to output valid > documents, as well as the parsing and rendering requirements, > to show the right output. It would only need the parsing requirements if it imported existing non-conformant HTML. (A full-featured editor probably would, but that isn't the only useful kind of editor.) It would clearly need the vocabulary and syntax requirements -- but for an editor, that is domain knowledge; needed in the same way that a baseball simulator would need to know the rules of baseball. > Similarly, a conformance checker's implementation requirements are > a combination of both the language conformance rules and some separate > implementation conformance rules (e.g. the parsing rules). It needs only the language conformance rules to say "valid" or "not valid". The (error-recovery portion of the) parsing rules would allow it to recover more gracefully and continue to provide additional useful errors on the same run -- but they aren't strictly required. -jJ
Received on Monday, 24 November 2008 04:22:36 UTC