- From: Philip Taylor <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
- Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2013 14:42:03 +0000
- To: "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
- CC: www-html@w3.org
Jukka K. Korpela wrote: > My understanding is just the opposite: conformance is defined for > documents, not just for serializations. For example, a document that > inserts, with JavaScript, a title element inside a body element is just > as nonconforming as one with the markup <body><title>foo</title></body>. Hmm, well, I don't want to derail what is clearly an important question (otherwise you would not have asked it) with philosophical issues, but it does seem to me that conformance needs to be a static concept rather than a dynamic one, otherwise a document that performs a non-conformant modification of the DOM IFF the date is (or was) 01-01-2000 would have to be defined to be /conditionally/ conformant (and the same if the trigger for the non-conformant DOM modification were to find the mouse at a particular pair of co-ordinates but no other, and so on). Anyhow, to try to keep the thread on-track, can you refer me to a W3C (or similar) document that defines conformance in the terms to which you believe it to refer, rather than one that defines it in terms of a static serialisation (preferably not an HTML5-related document, for reasons you fully understand and which we need not go into here) ? If you /are/ correct in your hypothesis (which you usually are), I hold out little hope for there ever being a W3C conformance checker that will check pages for dynamic conformance under all possible conditions. Philip Taylor
Received on Friday, 8 November 2013 14:42:32 UTC