W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > December 2008

Re: Extensibility and Uniformity; defining "error" behavior

From: Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress <rden@loc.gov>
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 10:01:16 -0500
Message-ID: <03a801c96a8f$777df1e0$18af938c@lib.loc.gov>
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.

Received on Tuesday, 30 December 2008 15:02:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:26 UTC