W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > September 2007

Conformance Section

From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 11:26:01 -0500
Message-ID: <46EC0799.2030205@aptest.com>
To: "public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf.w3.org" <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>

I have an action item to produce a conformance section.   Typically 
XHTML family specs have a conformance section that talks about document 
conformance and user agent conformance.  In this case I don't think we 
want to talk about user agents per-se....  probably RDFa processors?   
We can talk about document conformance, although I think we are 
dependent upon the separate xhtml-rdfa module definition document.  
That's not a bad dependency, but we can't produce our markup language 
(XHTML+RDFa) without those modules.

I will update that draft and refer to it normatively from rdfa-syntax.  
Two questions:

1) Are there any objections to introducing a section on document 
conformance that defines our markup language?  Its a trivial definition 
in that the modules are external so it is just XHTML 1.1 + the 
appropriate module(s).

2) I do not think that we are in a position to define additional user 
agent conformance beyond the ones defined in XHTML Modularization, but 
we should reference those.  Any objections?

3) Are there any objections to defining RDFa Processor Conformance? 

I am going to proceed assuming there are no objections.  If there are, 
please articulate them clearly so we can discuss on here and I will 
capture them as issues in the document.

Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Saturday, 15 September 2007 16:26:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:01:52 UTC