- From: Christophe Strobbe <christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be>
- Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 12:04:39 +0100
- To: <public-wai-ert@w3.org>
Hi Emmanuelle, All, At 23:33 23-11-2011, Emmanuelle Gutiérrez y Restrepo wrote: >Hi Christophe: > >You've done an awesome job. Although I think it >unnecessary, for we have believed you will not >need to collect all the examples. I looked only at a subset of the W3C recommendations, but the sample should be big enough ;-) >I think that since there is no consistency, the >issue can be solved by giving pleasure to the >person requesting to be put at the beginning. We should use our own judgement to determine the location of the conformance section. Looking at the list again, I notice three things: 1. The recommendations where the conformance section is at the top are either older specs or newer versions of older specs. 2. There are more recommendations who put conformance at the end or in an appendix compared to recommendations where it is at the top. 3. Even recommendations related to the Semantic Web are not entirely consistent, except for the OWL 2 recommendations that were released on 27 October 2009. These OWL 2 specs all refer to a separate recommendation that focuses on conformance. Best regards, Christophe >All the best, >Emmanuelle > >-----Mensaje original----- >De: Christophe Strobbe [mailto:christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be] >Enviado el: miércoles, 23 de noviembre de 2011 17:15 >Para: public-wai-ert@w3.org >Asunto: Where do other W3C specification put the conformance section? > >Hi, > >One of the open issues for EARL Schema is "Move >conformance section to the top of the document" >(<http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/EARL10/issues>). >The commenter's rationale was: ><blockquote> >Conformance criteria for languages like this >have to be treated carefully. What you are doing >is providing a route into implementing the >language. You should have conformance at the top >of a specification, not at the bottom. >Conformance is the recipe for creation, in a >sense. You want to give people a sense that >there is some single concrete format that they >can learn quickly, implement precisely, and test >for consistency. Conformance doesn't just help >with the third of these processes, but *all three*. ></blockquote> ><http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-earl10-comments/2011May/0002.html> > >W3C specifications vary on where they put >conformance sections: some specifications put it >at the top, some at the bottom, some others in >an appendix, and some even discuss conformance >in more than one place (SMIL 2.x). >There seems to be no consistency between >specification from the same "family" or W3C >Activity. There is sometimes inconsistency >between two parts of the same spec: XML Schema >Part 1 has the conformance section at the top, >while XML Schema Part 2 has it at the bottom. >The specifications in the OWL 2 family (except "RIF RDF and OWL >Compatibility") typically refer to another spec for conformance: "OWL >2 Web Ontology Language Conformance". > >I have checked a few specifications and >categorised them by the location of their conformance section. > >(Tip: If you can't sleep tonight, don't take a sleeping pill. >Instead, read the list below.) > > > >At the top: > >- OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Conformance (W3C >Recommendation 27 October 2009): ><http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-conformance-20091027/>: >"This document describes the conditions that OWL >2 tools must satisfy in order to be conformant >with the language specification. It also >presents a common format for OWL 2 test cases >that both illustrate the features of the >language and can be used for testing conformance." >And see more specifically Chapter 2: "Conformance": ><http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-conformance-20091027/#Conformance_.28Normative.29> > >- Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 (W3C Recommendation 5-May-1999): >Chapter 5 out of 6, but chapter 6 contains all the checkpoints: ><http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/#Conformance> > >- Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 >(W3C Recommendation 3 February 2000): >Chapter 1.3: <http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG10/#conformance> > >- XHTML 1.0 (Recommendation January 2000, revised August 2002): >Chapter 3: ><<http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#normative>http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#normative> > >- XHTML Basic (Recommendation December 2000; XHTML Basic 1.1 2nd >edition: 23 November 2010): >Chapter 2.1: <http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-basic/#s2.1> > >- XHTML 1.1 - Module-based XHTML (Recommendation May 2001; 2nd >edition: 23 November 2010): >Chapter 2: ><<http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/conformance.html#s_conform>http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/conformance.html#s_conform> > >- Mathematical Markup Language (MathML) Version >3.0 (W3C Recommendation 21 October 2010): >Chapter 2.3: <http://www.w3.org/TR/MathML3/chapter2.html#interf.genproc> > >- Pronunciation Lexicon Specification (PLS) >Version 1.0 (W3C Recommendation 14 October 2008): >Chapter 3.2: <http://www.w3.org/TR/pronunciation-lexicon/#S3.2> > >- Speech Synthesis Markup Language 1.0 (Recommendation September 2004): >Chapter 2.2: <http://www.w3.org/TR/speech-synthesis/#S2.2> > >- Speech Synthesis Markup Language (SSML) >Version 1.1 (W3C Recommendation 7 September 2010): >Chapter 2.2: <http://www.w3.org/TR/speech-synthesis11/#S2.2> > >- CSS Level 2 (Recommendation May 1998, revised 11 April 2008): >Chapter 3: <http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-CSS2-20080411/conform.html> > >- Cascading Style Sheets Level 2 Revision 1 (CSS >2.1) Specification (W3C Recommendation 07 June 2011): >Chapter 3: <http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/REC-CSS2-20110607/conform.html> > >- HTML 4.01 Specification (W3C Recommendation 24 December 1999): >Chapter 4: <http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/conform.html> > >- WebCGM 1.0 2nd release (Recommendation December 2001): >Chapter 1.5: ><http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-WebCGM/REC-01-CGM-Intro.html#webcgm_1_5> > >- Associating Style Sheets with XML documents >1.0 (Second Edition) (W3C Recommendation 28 October 2010): >Chapter 2 (in a rather short spec): ><http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/REC-xml-stylesheet-20101028/#conformance-requirements> > >- XML Schema Part 1: Structures Second Edition >(W3C Recommendation 28 October 2004): >Chapter 2.4: ><http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xmlschema-1-20041028/#concepts-conformance> > > > > >At the bottom: > >- Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 (W3C Recommendation >11 December 2008): >Last chapter before the appendices: <http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#conformance> > >- Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) 2.0 (W3C Working >Draft 21 July 2011): >Last chapter before the appendices: ><http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-ATAG20-20110721/#Conformance> > >- User Agent Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 (W3C Recommendation 17 >December 2002): >Chapter 3 out of 6 chapters, but chapter 2 contains all the >guidelines: <http://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG10/conformance.html#Conformance> > >- User Agent Accessibility Guidelines (UAAG) 2.0 (W3C Working Draft >19 July 2011): >Last chapter before the appendices: ><http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-UAAG20-20110719/#conformance> > >- Accessible Rich Internet Applications (WAI-ARIA) 1.0 (W3C Candidate >Recommendation 18 January 2011): >Chapter 8: <http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/CR-wai-aria-20110118/conformance> > >- XForms 1.0 Basic Profile (W3C Candidate Recommendation 14 October 2003): >Chapter 3: ><http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/CR-xforms-basic-20031014/#id2606183> (out >of 3 chapters, followed by 2 appendices). > >- XForms 1.0 (Third Edition) (W3C Recommendation 29 October 2007): >Chapter 12: <http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/REC-xforms-20071029/#conform> > >- XForms 1.1 (W3C Recommendation 20 October 2009): >Chapter 12: <http://www.w3.org/TR/xforms/#conform> > >- MathML 2.0 (Second Edition)(Recommendation 21 October 2003): >Chapter 7.2.1 MathML Conformance: ><<http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/REC-MathML2-20031021/chapter7.html#id.7.2.1>http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/REC-MathML2-20031021/chapter7.html#id.7.2.1> > >(one but last chapter; chapter 8 is followed by appendices A-L) > >- Speech Recognition Grammar Specification Version 1.0 (SRGS, W3C >Recommendation 16 March 2004): >Chapter 5: <http://www.w3.org/TR/speech-grammar/#S5> > >- Speech Recognition Grammar Specification 1.0 (Recommendation March 2004): >Chapter 5: ><<http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-speech-grammar-20040316/#S5>http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-speech-grammar-20040316/#S5> > >- CSS Level 1 (Recommendation December 1996, revised January 1999): >Chapter 7: <http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS1/#css1-conformance> >(Appendix B contains a normative grammar: ><<http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS1#appendix-b>http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS1#appendix-b>.) > >- Portable Network Graphics (PNG) Specification (Second Edition) (W3C >Recommendation 10 November 2003): >Chapter 15: <http://www.w3.org/TR/PNG/#15Conformance> > >- XSL Transformations (XSLT) Version 1.0 (W3C >Recommendation 16 November 1999): >Chapter 17: <http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xslt-19991116#conformance> > >- XSL Transformations (XSLT) Version 2.0 (W3C Recommendation 23 January 2007): >Chapter 21: <http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/REC-xslt20-20070123/#conformance> > >- XSLT 2.0 and XQuery 1.0 Serialization (Second Edition) (W3C >Recommendation 14 December 2010): >Chapter 10: ><http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/REC-xslt-xquery-serialization-20101214/#conformance> > >- XML Path Language (XPath) Version 1.0 (W3C Recommendation 16 November 1999): >Chapter 6: <http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xpath-19991116/#section-Conformance> > >- XQuery and XPath Full Text 1.0 (W3C Recommendation 17 March 2011): >Chapter 5: ><http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/REC-xpath-full-text-10-20110317/#id-tq-conformance> >Chapter 6: XQueryX Conformance: ><http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/REC-xpath-full-text-10-20110317/#id-xqueryx-full-text-conformance> > >- XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes Second Edition (W3C Recommendation 28 >October 2004): >Chapter 5, just before the appendices: ><http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xmlschema-2-20041028/#conformance> > >- Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Fifth Edition) (W3C >Recommendation 26 November 2008): >Chapter 5: <http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-xml-20081126/#sec-conformance> > >- Namespaces in XML 1.0 (Third Edition) (W3C Recommendation 8 December 2009): >Chapter 7: <http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-xml-names-20091208/#Conformance> > >- Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.1 (Second Edition) (W3C >Recommendation 16 August 2006): >Chapter 5: <http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml11-20060816/#sec-conformance> > >- Namespaces in XML 1.1 (Second Edition) (W3C Recommendation 16 August 2006): >Chapter 7 Conformance of Documents: ><http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml-names11-20060816/#Conformance> >Chapter 8 Conformance of Processors: ><http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml-names11-20060816/#ProcessorConformance> > >- RIF RDF and OWL Compatibility (W3C Recommendation 22 June 2010): >Chapter 6: ><http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/REC-rif-rdf-owl-20100622/#Conformance_Clauses> > > > > >In an appendix: > >- SVG 1.0 (Recommendation September 2001): >Appendix G: ><<http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-SVG-20010904/conform.html#ConformingSVGStandAloneFiles>http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-SVG-20010904/conform.html#ConformingSVGStandAloneFiles> > >- SVG 1.1 (Recommendation January 2003; 2nd edition: 16 August 2011): >Appendix G: ><<http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/conform.html#ConformingSVGStandAloneFiles>http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/conform.html#ConformingSVGStandAloneFiles> > >- Mobile SVG Profiles: SVG Tiny and SVG Basic (Recommendation January >2003, edited in place 15 June 2009): >Appendix F: <http://www.w3.org/TR/SVGMobile/#sec-conformance> > >- Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) Tiny 1.2 Specification (W3C >Recommendation 22 December 2008): >Appendix D: <http://www.w3.org/TR/SVGTiny12/conform.html> > >- VoiceXML 2.0 (Recommendation March 2004): >Appendix F: ><<http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-voicexml20-20040316/#dmlAConformance>http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-voicexml20-20040316/#dmlAConformance> > >- Voice Extensible Markup Language (VoiceXML) 2.1 (W3C Recommendation >19 June 2007): >Appendix C: <http://www.w3.org/TR/voicexml21/#sec-conform> > >- Voice Browser Call Control: CCXML Version 1.0 (W3C Recommendation >05 July 2011): >Appendix J: <http://www.w3.org/TR/ccxml/#conformance> > >- Semantic Interpretation for Speech Recognition (SISR) Version 1.0 >(W3C Recommendation 5 April 2007): >Appendix A: <http://www.w3.org/TR/semantic-interpretation/#SIA> > >- State Chart XML (SCXML): State Machine Notation for Control >Abstraction (W3C Working Draft 26 April 2011): >Appendix C: <http://www.w3.org/TR/scxml/#conformance> > >- XML Path Language (XPath) 2.0 (Second Edition) (W3C Recommendation >14 December 2010): >Appendix F: ><http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/REC-xpath20-20101214/#id-xpath-conformance> > > > > >Somewhere in the middle: > >- RDF/XML Syntax Specification (Revised) (W3C >Recommendation 10 February 2004): >Chapter 5.5: ><http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-syntax-grammar-20040210/#section-conformance> > > > > >In more than one location: > >- Synchronized Multimedia Integration Language (SMIL 2.1) (W3C >Proposed Recommendation 27 September 2005): >Chapter 2.5: SMIL host language and SMIL integration set conformance: ><http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/PR-SMIL2-20050927/smil-modules.html#smilModulesNSSMILConformance> >Chapter 13.3: Document Conformance & SMIL 2.1 Language Conformance, >...: <http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/PR-SMIL2-20050927/smil21-profile.html#q3> > >- SMIL 2.0 2nd edition (Recommendation January 2005): >Chapter 2.4: SMIL Conformance (SMIL host language and SMIL >integration set conformance): ><http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/REC-SMIL2-20050107/smil-modules.html#smilModulesNSSMILConformance> >Chapter 13.3: ><http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/REC-SMIL2-20050107/smil20-profile.html#q3>: > Document >conformance<http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/REC-SMIL2-20050107/smil20-profile.html#SMILProfileNS-DocumentConformance> > >& SMIL 2.0 Language Conformance. > > >Other cases: > >- OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Direct Semantics (W3C Recommendation 27 >October 2009): ><http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-direct-semantics-20091027/> >This spec refers to the "OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Conformance" >spec for conformance. > >- OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Mapping to RDF Graphs (W3C >Recommendation 27 October 2009): ><http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-mapping-to-rdf-20091027/> >This spec refers to the "OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Conformance" >spec for conformance. > >- OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Profiles (W3C Recommendation 27 October 2009): ><http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-profiles-20091027/> >This spec refers to the "OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Conformance" >spec for conformance. > >- OWL 2 Web Ontology Language RDF-Based Semantics (W3C Recommendation >27 October 2009): ><http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-rdf-based-semantics-20091027/> >This spec refers to the "OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Conformance" >spec for conformance. > >- OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Structural Specification and >Functional-Style Syntax (W3C Recommendation 27 October 2009): ><http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-syntax-20091027/> >This spec refers to the "OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Conformance" >spec for conformance. > >- OWL 2 Web Ontology Language XML Serialization (W3C Recommendation >27 October 2009): ><http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-xml-serialization-20091027/> >This spec refers to the "OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Conformance" >spec for conformance. > >- rdf:PlainLiteral: A Datatype for RDF Plain Literals (W3C >Recommendation 27 October 2009): ><http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-rdf-plain-literal-20091027/> >This spec refers to the "OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Conformance" >spec for conformance. > >- OWL Web Ontology Language Reference (W3C Recommendation 10 February 2004): >No conformance section, but an RDF Schema for OWL in Appendix B: ><http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-ref-20040210/#appB> > >- OWL Web Ontology Language Semantics and Abstract Syntax (W3C >Recommendation 10 February 2004): ><http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-semantics-20040210/>. No >conformance section. > >- Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) Snapshot 2010 (W3C Working Draft 02 >December 2010): >no conformance section: <http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-css-2010-20101202/> > >- Synchronized Multimedia Integration Language (SMIL) 1.0 >Specification (W3C Recommendation 15-June-1998): >No conformance section, but a DTD at the end: ><http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-smil/#smil-dtd>. > >- MathML 1.01 (Recommendation 1997, revised 7 July 1999) has no >conformance section. The section about parsing MathML >(http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-MathML/appendixA.html) states that "MathML >documents should be validated using the XML DTD below". > >- RDF Vocabulary Description Language 1.0: RDF Schema (W3C >Recommendation 10 February 2004): ><http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-schema-20040210/> >No conformance requirements. > >- RDF Semantics (W3C Recommendation 10 February 2004): ><http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/>. >No conformance requirements. > > >(Many of the specs in this list come from my earlier message from >November 2005 at ><http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005OctDec/0442.html> >where I checked how many W3C specs required validation.) > >Best regards, > >Christophe > > >-- >Christophe Strobbe -- Christophe Strobbe K.U.Leuven - Dept. of Electrical Engineering - SCD Research Group on Document Architectures Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 bus 2442 B-3001 Leuven-Heverlee BELGIUM tel: +32 16 32 85 51 http://www.docarch.be/ Twitter: @RabelaisA11y --- Open source for accessibility: results from the AEGIS project www.aegis-project.eu --- Please don't invite me to Facebook, Quechup or other "social networks". You may have agreed to their "privacy policy", but I haven't.
Received on Thursday, 24 November 2011 11:05:33 UTC