[Bug 6205] add conformance statement for model processors

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6205





--- Comment #1 from John Arwe <johnarwe@us.ibm.com>  2008-11-04 16:15:58 ---
I do want to clarify this, since the meeting (and the minutes) reflect terms
that language lawyer might assert are new.  I think the intent was to add the
following:

SML: "A conforming SML model processor is one which
satisfies all the constraints imposed on model processors elsewhere in this
specification."
> I inserted the word "model" above, 2x, to match existing 2.2 content.

SMLIF: "A conforming SML-IF processor is one which
satisfies all the constraints imposed on processors elsewhere in this
specification."
> I just removed the SML parts of the resolution, leaving the SMLIF specific bit

SMLIF mentions "processors", without defining that term, in 4 places:
2.2 impl-defined
2.2 impl-dep
4.4 schema bindings (non-normative)
5.1 conformance (added via f2f resolution, text above)

The wg appears to have at least the following routes out of LLH on this issue:
(a) define processors, presumably == producers + consumers
(b) replace the existing 3 "processors" with terms already defined
(c) assert "good enough" and make no further changes to the f2f resolution

Existing 2.2 text from LC2 draft:

Implementation-Defined

    An implementation-defined feature or behavior may vary among processors
conforming to this specification; the precise behavior is not specified by this
specification but MUST be specified by the implementor for each particular
conforming implementation. 
Implementation-Dependent

    An implementation-dependent feature or behavior may vary among processors
conforming to this specification; the precise behavior is not specified by this
or any other W3C specification and is not required to be specified by the
implementor for any particular implementation. 


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.

Received on Tuesday, 4 November 2008 16:16:09 UTC