[w3c sml] About Conforming Processor (was [Bug 4675] ...)

Ginny,

About "conformance", here's my theory. There are actually 3 levels we 
could be talking about conformance.

1. A particular invocation

This is the easiest to understand. If this invocation procures expected 
result, it's conformant; otherwise it's not.

2. A particular configuration

To know things statically, "invocation" level isn't always useful. If 
invocations under a certain configuration (parameters, environment, etc.) 
always produce expected results, then this configuration is conformant.

3. A particular piece of software

Software may want to provide multiple modes/configurations. Some of them 
may be conformant; and some not. We often say the software is conformant 
if a subset of its configurations are conformant.


When a spec talks about conformance, it's about behavior, so it's really 
about a particular invocation, which can be reasonably extended to 
configurations. But it's not about software.


Using the above definition, 

> Can a conforming process that
> supports all specification requirements/features all of a sudden not be
> a conforming process (momentarily) because it is behaving in a manner
> not covered in the spec when **specifically requested to do so**?

That momentarily non-conformance is about a particular 
invocation/configuration. This does not make the validator non-conformant, 
as long as it can run in a mode that has conformant invocations.

> This
> ties in with Sandy's comments in the last meeting regarding schematron
> phases. SML specifies that an IF document is 'valid' if valid in the
> #ALL phase and that conforming producers must support Schematron (which
> means phases). I don't see how a conforming validator can be classified
> as non-conforming just because it also allows some non-SML features to
> be invoked by a user (such as a non-ALL phase validation). 

In the above case, I don't think the validator should be classified as 
non-conforming. Just like if my SML validator has a mode for "don't check 
sml key/keyref constraints", it should still be conforming, as long as it 
has a mode that does check that.

On the other hand, I do believe the spec should be consistent in terms of 
conformance. Allowing conforming invocations/configurations to accept 
non-conforming models makes me uncomfortable. Also it's not the spec's 
responsibility to explicitly allow all different useful non-conforming 
ways people may want to invoke the validator.

But I can live with the change if other people agree (see my other mail), 
in the spirit of "let's make things go faster". :-)

Thanks,
Sandy Gao
XML Technologies, IBM Canada
Editor, W3C XML Schema WG
Member, W3C SML WG
(1-905) 413-3255 T/L 313-3255