- From: Liam R E Quin <liam@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2010 14:08:07 -0400
- To: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Cc: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org, "Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com>
On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 19:41 +0200, Simon Pieters wrote: [...] > > I met with Tim this morning; he'd like > > > > Add to the document, e.g. in the Applications para > > At the time of edition 1 (1999) the meaning of these p-attributes was > > not well specified, > > Appendix B already states: > > "The first edition of this specification was admirably brief, but at the > same time left many details unstated." Maybe it needs to be up higher :( > > and at the time of edition 2 (2010) there is low > > interoperability in the values between implementations; > > How do we assess that there is low interoperability in the values between > implementations? [...] I don't have a way to assess interop because the spec is too vague. There were claims made in our PER director's call that different implementations do different things with a missing "media" pseudo-attribute, although I'm not entirely sure that really means low interop, because e.g. a Web browser isn't going to do anything useful with a link to a FOSI stylesheet. > > We need also to contact browser vendors and see if they are willing > > to sit round a table & get conformance/semantics pinned down in a > > future edition. > > Hmm. I work for a browser vendor. I joined this group in the hope to get > conformance/semantics pinned down. But the WG consensus was to not have > any conformance requirements at all. Right (well, I wasn't on the WG at that time but watched from outside..) I think Tim is agreeing with you, but also accepting the WG position that this is an edited rec, not a whole new version. -- Liam Quin - XML Activity Lead, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/ Pictures from old books: http://fromoldbooks.org/ Ankh: irc.sorcery.net irc.gnome.org www.advogato.org
Received on Tuesday, 6 July 2010 18:08:10 UTC