[html5] r5605 - [e] (0) try to clarify the applicable spec stuff Fixing http://www.w3.org/Bugs/P [...]

[whatwg at whatwg.org]

Author: ianh
Date: 2010-10-11 23:53:16 -0700 (Mon, 11 Oct 2010)
New Revision: 5605

Modified:
   complete.html
   index
   source
Log:
[e] (0) try to clarify the applicable spec stuff
Fixing http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9178

Modified: complete.html
===================================================================
--- complete.html	2010-10-12 06:34:45 UTC (rev 5604)
+++ complete.html	2010-10-12 06:53:16 UTC (rev 5605)
@@ -3456,6 +3456,16 @@
   this specification.</p>
   <!-- http://www.w3.org/mid/17E341CD-E790-422C-9F9A-69347EE01CEB@iki.fi -->
 
+  <p class=note>Someone could write a specification that defines any
+  arbitrary byte stream as conforming, and then claim that their
+  random junk is conforming. However, that does not mean that their
+  random junk actually is conforming for everyone's purposes: if
+  someone else decides that that specification does not apply to their
+  work, then they can quite legitimately say that the aforementioned
+  random junk is just that, junk, and not conforming at all. As far as
+  conformance goes, what matters in a particular community is what
+  that community <em>agrees</em> is applicable.</p>
+
   <hr><p>User agents must treat elements and attributes that they do not
   understand as semantically neutral; leaving them in the DOM (for DOM
   processors), and styling them according to CSS (for CSS processors),

Modified: index
===================================================================
--- index	2010-10-12 06:34:45 UTC (rev 5604)
+++ index	2010-10-12 06:53:16 UTC (rev 5605)
@@ -3433,6 +3433,16 @@
   this specification.</p>
   <!-- http://www.w3.org/mid/17E341CD-E790-422C-9F9A-69347EE01CEB@iki.fi -->
 
+  <p class=note>Someone could write a specification that defines any
+  arbitrary byte stream as conforming, and then claim that their
+  random junk is conforming. However, that does not mean that their
+  random junk actually is conforming for everyone's purposes: if
+  someone else decides that that specification does not apply to their
+  work, then they can quite legitimately say that the aforementioned
+  random junk is just that, junk, and not conforming at all. As far as
+  conformance goes, what matters in a particular community is what
+  that community <em>agrees</em> is applicable.</p>
+
   <hr><p>User agents must treat elements and attributes that they do not
   understand as semantically neutral; leaving them in the DOM (for DOM
   processors), and styling them according to CSS (for CSS processors),

Modified: source
===================================================================
--- source	2010-10-12 06:34:45 UTC (rev 5604)
+++ source	2010-10-12 06:53:16 UTC (rev 5605)
@@ -2440,6 +2440,16 @@
   this specification.</p>
   <!-- http://www.w3.org/mid/17E341CD-E790-422C-9F9A-69347EE01CEB@iki.fi -->
 
+  <p class="note">Someone could write a specification that defines any
+  arbitrary byte stream as conforming, and then claim that their
+  random junk is conforming. However, that does not mean that their
+  random junk actually is conforming for everyone's purposes: if
+  someone else decides that that specification does not apply to their
+  work, then they can quite legitimately say that the aforementioned
+  random junk is just that, junk, and not conforming at all. As far as
+  conformance goes, what matters in a particular community is what
+  that community <em>agrees</em> is applicable.</p>
+
   <hr>
 
   <p>User agents must treat elements and attributes that they do not