Re^2: The continuing saga of Spec Guideline 6

Lofton wrote:
>I would like to see, in the guideline verbiage, an expression of the
>idea that this guideline is a "catch-all"...I would see this GL as a
>possible place for a checkpoint that would try to flush out such "any
>other miscellaneous rules about conformance policy."

Those are good points. Perhaps I didn't make a radical enough change.
Quick idea for a new checkpoint:

6.5 If any general rules of interpretation are intended, they must be
stated explicitly.

Rationale: Document policies of the W3C do not require a particular
interpretation when conflicts are found in verbiage. No conflicts
should be deliberately introduced, but it is acceptable to state a
general rule to resolve such conflicts. It is also acceptable to
state a general rule for under-specified behavior.

The above is very quick and sketchy, in time for the teleconference.
.................David Marston

Received on Monday, 4 November 2002 10:58:51 UTC