Re: modularity in specifications

At 12:04 -0500 2002-03-18, Lynne Rosenthal wrote:
>(1)  what does modularity mean for a specification  - (this is something

Several issues here.

- Modularity as different pieces of a spec:

  	For example, XHTML Modularization, we are conformant to the 
Text Module but not the table one, ... So what does it mean to be 
conformant, it's why I think the specification must declare the way 
they want people claim their conformance, like UAAG did.

- Modularity as different features of a spec:

	Imagine a "Braille" implementation of SVG, you have a 
pin-point board which draws in relief a square, a triangle, etc, so 
which draws a 3D shape of a 2D vector graphics. It has no sense to 
implement colors in this kind of things. So what the conformance 
means in this case and how you can claim it.

- Modularity as a Composite document:

	What's a composite document, A document done with namespaces, 
do you need always a schema or a DTD to validate this kind of 
documents. If namespace are sufficient what does that mean for a 
player to be conformant or not. For example a player that will not 
accept and strip every tags it doesn't understand and so destroy the 
integrity of the document in memory, is it a conformant player.

For example in Ruby [1] you have an interesting conformance section 
which is a good example because the spec is small and the conformance 
section is well detailed. I have reviewed when I was in Japan and 
Martin was working on it.
There's notion of level of Conformance and conformance for different 
pieces of software.

For example you have the wording.
	"An interpreter is a conforming simple ruby markup 
interpreter if it rejects nonconforming simple ruby markup, accepts 
conforming simple ruby markup, and, where it interprets ruby markup, 
does so in accordance with this specification."


Karl Dubost / W3C - Conformance Manager

      --- Be Strict To Be Cool! ---

Received on Monday, 18 March 2002 14:12:55 UTC