- From: <david_marston@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2003 23:11:40 -0400
- To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
Lynne writes: >1. [making the CP apply to consolidation of discretionary items] >is not the original intent of the checkpoint (as I was the original >author). The original intent was that I would get the same results, >under the same conditions - e.g., if I choose an option, like 'large >fonts', and view a page, then if I view another page or that same >page (after refresh), I would get the same 'large fonts'. This CP definitely has a long, tortured history. My recent rewrite was based on the last published version of 8.4, which was basically Dom's wording trying to express the consolidation thought. He said "factorize" but meant the same thing. The rewrite that you worked from was the result of further interchange among me, Dom, and Lofton. I think we also need to say something about your interpretation, that whatever choice is made by the implementation should be deterministic. That will need an escape clause for the upcoming full-text-search enhancement to XQuery, but is a good idea in general. It's especially useful when an implementation is capable of more than one behavior and offers the user a choice. Nevertheless, the pressure to consolidate discretionary items will have a very positive effect on interoperability. I don't know why you disagree with applying such pressure. I think we should have two checkpoints here. .................David Marston
Received on Friday, 5 September 2003 23:12:39 UTC