- From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2010 11:06:40 +0200
- To: "Liam R E Quin" <liam@w3.org>
- Cc: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org, "Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com>
On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 20:08:07 +0200, Liam R E Quin <liam@w3.org> wrote: > 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 :( I'm fine with that. >> > 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. I don't buy that. :-) You don't need a spec at all to assess interop, you just need test cases. The test cases I'm aware of are: http://simon.html5.org/test/xml/xml-stylesheet/ http://hixie.ch/tests/adhoc/xml/styling/pi/internal/ http://annevankesteren.nl/test/xml/pi/i/ I don't like putting a statement in the spec saying that there's low interop, especially when it's not backed up by evidence. But if putting it there means that we can publish, then sure. > 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. As far as I'm aware, all implementations attempt to apply the style sheet if the "media" pseudo-attribute is missing. Is there some implementation that does something different? >> > 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. Ok. Cheers, -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
Received on Wednesday, 7 July 2010 09:07:20 UTC