- From: Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>
- Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2011 22:52:10 +0100
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- CC: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On 02/03/2011 22:33, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > On 3/2/11 4:25 PM, Anton Prowse wrote: >> I've always been rather fascinated by this idea. Can an implementation >> claim to be compliant if it produces the same rendering in all cases as >> if it did implement these "invisible" abstractions, even if it actually >> doesn't implement them? > > Yes, of course. Compliance testing is black-box, no? Indeed, but I guess it's precisely the "testing" angle that's interesting; the (largely philosophical) question is whether the failure of an implementation to implement /untestable/ requirements has a bearing on whether it is regarded as compliant. Common sense would dictate that it doesn't, of course, but... > The "in all cases" part is the tough part. ;) Sure! I imagine it's easy to get caught "cheating" :-) Anton
Received on Wednesday, 2 March 2011 21:52:41 UTC