- From: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
- Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2003 08:56:38 -0600 (MDT)
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Cc: www-qa@w3.org
On Fri, 5 Sep 2003, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > * Alex Rousskov wrote: > >> You'd need a term for the process where a product attempts to do or > >> does what the specification requires (currently "implements") > >> though. > > > >or "based on"? > > I thought about that, but it is probably a bad choice if you want to > express that anyone is, well, implementing a technology in a software > product for example. > > >> I do not necessarily think of e.g. a HTTP request as a class of > >> product but it is more a product than an implementation. > > > >HTTP request is not a conformance subject :-). HTTP agent creating, > >forwarding, or receiving an HTTP request is. > > Why? I understand the concept of a HTTP request as a "class of product" > and a product as an instance of a "class of product". Good point. It may be a matter of opinion because HTTP specification is not very precise. RFC 2616 conformance policy defines conformance for HTTP "implementations". In RFC 2616 context, I interpret "implementation" as "agent" (client, server, or intermediary). However, one could interpret "implementation" in a broad sense and include HTTP messages. Fortunately, the practical difference is negligible because a standard-violating HTTP message virtually always implies a standard-violating agent. The reverse is not necessarily true because some common agent behavior is not expressed via a single HTTP message (e.g. caching). Alex.
Received on Friday, 5 September 2003 10:56:42 UTC