W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom@w3.org > January to March 2000

Re: DOM-2 CSS Module Inclusion -- Conformance/Compliance

From: Lauren Wood <lauren@sqwest.bc.ca>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 14:44:10 -0800
Message-Id: <200003282245.OAA04282@mail.sqwest.bc.ca>
To: <www-dom@w3.org>
On 28 Mar 00, at 13:26, Glenn Adams wrote:

> In Document Object Model (DOM) Level 2 Specification, Version 1.0, W3C Candidate Recommendation 07 March, 2000, under Section 5.2 CSS Fundamental Interfaces appears the following:
> "The interfaces within this section are considered fundamental, and must be supported by all conforming DOM implementations."
> In contrast, in "What is the Document Object Model?" under "Compliance", one finds:
> "A compliant implementation of the DOM must implement all of the fundamental interfaces in the Core chapter with the semantics as defined. Further, it must implement at least one of the HTML DOM and the extended (XML) interfaces with the semantics as defined. The other modules are optional."
> There seems to be a conflict between these two statements, with the former requiring the CSS module and the latter making it optional. Also, the former uses the term "conformance" while the latter uses the term "compliance". Is there something I'm missing here?

The answer is that if you claim to support the CSS module, you 
need to support the fundamental CSS interfaces, and may choose 
to support the extended CS interfaces. The CSS module as a 
whole is optional. So the first quote should probably be

"The interfaces within this section are considered fundamental CSS 
interfaces, and must be supported by all conforming 
implementations of the CSS DOM module."

Would that make it clearer?

Received on Tuesday, 28 March 2000 17:46:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 20 October 2015 10:46:06 UTC