[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [oiic-formation-discuss] "Strictly conforming" is not related to "interoperable"
2008/6/16 Sam Johnston <email@example.com>: > The key thing with extensions is that if the spec allows for a feature then > the output should be conformant (for that feature) rather than expressed as > an extension, unless there is good reason to stray. > > A simple, quantitative metric that could potentially be applied is the ratio > of in-spec to out-of-spec content (where implementations are punished for > [ab]using extensions), but then there are questions as to whether you cound > #directives, #bytes, etc. Isn't that a judgement rather than a test Sam? x:y is good, anything less is bad? What's the pass fail test? 1.5 is a mess, basically untestable. A review by the nvdl mailing list pulled quite a few weaknesses out, which I've forwarded to the mainTC. 1.5 is also double crossed, referring to an OR clause for read/write. Foreign is undefined. I've been unable to define a clear test. http://www.dpawson.co.uk/iic/tests.section1.html#test.section126.96.36.199.2 regards -- Dave Pawson XSLT XSL-FO FAQ. http://www.dpawson.co.uk