Re: Change proposal for HTML WG ISSUE-140: Conformance terminology when applicable specifications are used

On 1/18/2011 4:41 PM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
> Since the HTML5 draft prohibits many previously conforming features -
> especially attributes, many of which user agents nevertheless support,
> it might be a point to also add that applicable specifications as well
> "MAY permit certain otherwise non-conforming content".

My impression is that applicable specifications can change, or provide 
support for almost anything; the "MAY"s in my proposal were intended to be 
suggestive of the scope, and not in any way limiting.  I have no problem 
with cases like this being called out explicitly, or with the WG perhaps 
rewording that whole bit.  The main point of my proposal is the terminology 
relating to conformance.  Thank you.

Noah

Received on Wednesday, 19 January 2011 19:48:11 UTC