- From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 22:36:26 +1000
Anne van Kesteren wrote: > Lachlan Hunt wrote: > >> Olav Junker Kj?r wrote: >> >>> Lachlan Hunt wrote: >>> >>>> Validators should not be non-conformant simply because they only do >>>> their job to validate a document and nothing else. I don't see any >>>> reason why such a statement needs to be included at all. > > I don't see anything about validators. I only read about "Conformance > checkers". In the note in that section [1]: | Conformance checkers that only perform validation are non-conformant, In fact, now that I've read it again, it seems rather contradictory. Just before the note, it states: | Conformance checkers are exempt from detecting errors that require | interpretation of the author's intent (for example, while a document | is non-conformant if the content of a blockquote element is not a | quote, conformance checkers do not have to check that blockquote | elements only contain quoted material). I would argue that conformance requirements that cannot be expressed by a DTD *are* constraints that require interpretation by the author. Therefore, that section seems to be saying that validators are exempt from checking some things, but are non-conformant for not checking them anyway. -- Lachlan Hunt http://lachy.id.au/ http://GetFirefox.com/ Rediscover the Web http://GetThunderbird.com/ Reclaim your Inbox
Received on Wednesday, 6 April 2005 05:36:26 UTC