- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 09:57:07 -0800
- To: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Cc: "Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress" <rden@loc.gov>, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, www-tag@w3.org
On Dec 30, 2008, at 7:53 AM, Shane McCarron wrote: > > > > Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress wrote: >> 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. > +1 - I have been doing this nonsense since 1985 and that's always > the definition we use. +2 I've always understood the word in more or less Larry's sense. However, it don't see (contra other comments) that the criteria in http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/#crec are necessarily at odds with Larry's definition. This refers to test suites, which are collections of examples provided by a specs authors which are used to illustrate required or expected interoperation behaviors, such as not crashing or delivering a certain type of response under certain conditions. The RDF and OWL test suites, for example, consisted largely of example parsings, entailments and non-entailments appropriate for fragments of RDF and OWL syntax. None of this requires uniformity of the user agent's implementation, only in certain aspects of its behavior (those required for interoperability, in fact.) Pat ------------------------------------------------------------ IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Tuesday, 30 December 2008 17:58:30 UTC