- From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 17:09:35 +0100
- To: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
- CC: public-rif-wg@w3.org
Christian de Sainte Marie wrote: > > Dave Reynolds wrote: >> >> Perhaps I was reading too much into the link to the "default >> behaviour" requirement. I assume there is then a need for someone to >> edit a page on a conformance model requirement. > > I just modified the "default behaviour" proposed requirement to make it > more like a requirement and less like a proposed design [1]. Does that > answer your concerns? Yes, thanks. > Default behaviour and conformance model are > somewhat dual, aren't they? Only somewhat. You could have a conformance model without any notion of per-ruleset/rule/element default behaviour other than a global "can't process". Dave
Received on Tuesday, 30 May 2006 16:09:53 UTC