- From: Anne van Kesteren <fora@annevankesteren.nl>
- Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 14:48:19 +0200
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, So? That doesn't make it a validator. A conformance checker might do things validators do too, but that doesn't make it one. > In fact, now that I've read it again, it seems rather contradictory. How? > I would argue that conformance requirements that cannot be expressed > by a DTD *are* constraints that require interpretation by the author. Not really. Think about: <http://annevankesteren.nl/archives/2003/09/invalid-after-validated> > Therefore, that section seems to be saying that validators are exempt > from checking some things, but are non-conformant for not checking > them anyway. Note that this is about more than just validating and isn't about validators. -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/>
Received on Wednesday, 6 April 2005 05:48:19 UTC