- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 15:58:47 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27619 --- Comment #2 from Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> --- Personal response. Thanks for the comment. Would I be right in thinking that the comment is essentially about conformance levels? We did think about this, but we didn't feel we could ask implementors to support ALL languages (especially as the set of languages is constantly changing), and we didn't feel there was any sensible way of defining a set of core languages that all products must support. In addition, we recognize that some vendors might want to produce products, or product variants, that are targeted at particular geographic markets, and we did not feel that such products should be deemed non-conformant. We also run into issues here of "conditional conformance": XSLT processor ZYX is conformant provided you install an internationalization library that does A, B and C, or provided that you perform other configuration steps. Which doesn't actually provide any real interoperability benefits over saying that the feature is optional. In practical terms, bundling a rich inernationalization library with an XSLT processor can seriously bloat its size, at a time when running on mobile devices is increasingly important. So I think we should allow the market to develop solutions tailored to varying user requirements. We could consider making support for some of the non-language-related parameters mandatory (e.g. collation strength), but which ones? Almost any decision here is an assertion that some groups of users/requirements are more important than others. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 16 December 2014 15:58:48 UTC