- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 14:57:41 +0300
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Jun/0251.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Jun/0252.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Jun/0254.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Jun/0256.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Jun/0278.html As a summary of what might need changing in the spec, I highlight these paragraphs (from message 0256 above): > A machine-checkable criterion should probably be defined to be a > criterion the conformance to which is a decidable problem (in the > computer science sense) given a document (Content-Type and finite > byte stream) and the knowledge embodied in the spec and the normative > references. > > That is, the program computing whether a given document conforms to a > criterion should not be required to consult outside resources and > should not embody arbitrary knowledge that isn't part of the spec > (with normative references). However, I also wrote: > As a side note: For extra usefulness, a checker can have knowledge > about particular URI scheme-specific requirements. Different choices > here cause a theoretical problem. If we want to remove the > theoretical problem, the spec could enumerate a closed list of URI > schemes that conformance checkers must know about. (Forbidding the > application of knowledge about common schemes like http, https and > mailto would be silly.) -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen at iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Friday, 6 July 2007 04:57:41 UTC