- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 23:25:56 +0000 (UTC)
On Fri, 6 Jul 2007, Henri Sivonen wrote: > > 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). I don't understand how the spec doesn't already say all this in the phrase "machine-checkable". > 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.) I don't really see what the problem is here. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 8 May 2008 16:25:56 UTC