RE: Status of algorithms

Despite my earlier indication to refrain from further comment, I return because I observe some discussion is taking place.
 
I propose that the text that introduces an algorithm in the normative section be phrased something like the following (based on an idea suggested in Anne's most recent email to this list):
 
"The value of the text response entity body MUST be determined by the agent as if it had run the following algorithm:"
 
This, I believe, provides the necessary clarity and flexibility while providing the necessary formal functional definition.
 
Regards,
---Rotan.

________________________________

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann [mailto:derhoermi@gmx.net]
Sent: Tue 19/06/2007 21:55
To: Anne van Kesteren
Cc: Rotan Hanrahan; public-webapi@w3.org
Subject: Re: Status of algorithms



* Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>How about:
>
>   Conformance requirements phrased as algorithms or specific steps may
>   be implemented in any manner, so long as the end result is equivalent.

The problem is not with the conformance section, it is with the specific
requirements regarding algorithm use, phrases like "must use this algo-
rithm" if using that particular algorithm is not actually required are
confusing and should be changed. You could simply introduce the specific
algorithms with "The algorithm is:" and note in the conformance section
that where given, implementations must implement an algorithm producing
the same results as that in the specification; that would remove much of
the confusion.
--
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de <http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de/> 
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de <http://www.bjoernsworld.de/> 
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/

Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2007 21:07:11 UTC