- From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
- Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 11:42:23 -0700
- To: "'Walden Mathews'" <waldenm@optonline.net>, "'Dan Connolly'" <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>
> The presence of the language: "the installed base of HTML user agents" > makes the "must" interpretation infeasible. Would the spec > be requiring > something of an "installed base"? > The text preceeding the : "To facilitate experimentation and interoperability between implementations of various versions of HTML, the installed base of HTML user agents supports a superset of the HTML 2.0 language by reducing it to HTML 2.0:" Provides a purpose (to facilitate ..) and a description of a mechanism to support the purpose (by reducing it to). Maybe it could have been worded a bit better "HTML user agents support a superset..." but I still think that does not diminish the (what I call) must ignore rule following the colon. I think that "the installed base" phrase is probably irrelevent because the installed base of HTML user agents is the set of user agents that are in existance at any given time. And an HTML user agent is a user agent that is compliant with HTML. So "installed base" as part of mechanism description doesn't take away from the actual conformance test. Further, I believe the text before the colon supports my position that experimentation (evolution/exensibility) are desirable properties and are acheived by a must ignore rule, which is described after the colon. Cheers, Dave
Received on Wednesday, 22 October 2003 14:42:28 UTC