Re: QASG last call comments: Modesty requirement

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005, Karl Dubost wrote:
> 
> Le 19 janv. 2005, à 09:56, Ian Hickson a écrit :
> > Finally I would add one other good practice: specifications should not
> > claim to be simple, easy, device-independent, conformant to WAAA or
> > QAG, or make other claims about their quality or conformance to other
> > specifications. While it is fine to indicate that one of the
> > requirements of the specification may have been to be easy / device-
> > independent / whatever, it should IMHO be up to the reader to make the
> > determination of whether the working group was successful or not.
> 
> If a specification is conformant to something else, it's because… it is.
> 
> For example, if a WG write a specification and find out that they are 
> conformant to SpecGL after checking with the ICS, why they should not 
> claim that they are conformant to SpecGL?

Because whether they comply is not cut and dry. For example, SVG 1.2 
claims to comply to AWWW. But IMHO it doesn't.


> Agreed for Easy and simple which are subjective.

Great.


> SpecGL Conformance criteria are (should be) objective as for Infoset for 
> example.

I have yet to find a specification for which conformance is actually 
objective! Similarly, I can easily show any UA is non-compliant to any 
spec it implements, simply by picking tests it fails. If someone uses 
different tests, then they might show it is conformant.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'