- From: Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress <rden@loc.gov>
- Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 10:01:16 -0500
- To: "Larry Masinter" <masinter@adobe.com>, "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>
Sorry ... From: "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com> > On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 15:23:00 +0100, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com> > wrote: >> I think you are talking about "uniformity" when you use the word >> "interoperability". > > FWIW, the W3C generally uses the word "interoperability" where you say > "uniformity". See e.g. http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/#crec Yes, it often does, and it's wrong. By the way, where it says "There must be at least two interoperable implementations...." I think the intent is to say "There must be at least two conforming implementations ...", not "There must be at least two uniform(?) implementations ..." In any case "interoperable" is not the proper term to use. I argued this for several years and eventually gave up. But I have to back Larry up on this. His definition is the traditional one in standards. --Ray
Received on Tuesday, 30 December 2008 15:02:20 UTC