[html5] r5996 - [e] (0) apply wg decision Fixing http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9178
whatwg at whatwg.org
whatwg at whatwg.org
Tue Apr 12 16:32:22 PDT 2011
Author: ianh
Date: 2011-04-12 16:32:21 -0700 (Tue, 12 Apr 2011)
New Revision: 5996
Modified:
complete.html
index
source
Log:
[e] (0) apply wg decision
Fixing http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9178
Modified: complete.html
===================================================================
--- complete.html 2011-04-12 22:47:26 UTC (rev 5995)
+++ complete.html 2011-04-12 23:32:21 UTC (rev 5996)
@@ -3000,7 +3000,8 @@
documents<span class=impl> (relevant to authors and authoring tool
implementors)</span>.</p>
- <p><dfn id=conforming-documents>Conforming documents</dfn> are those that comply with all
+ <p><dfn id=conforming-documents>Conforming
+ documents</dfn> are those that comply with all
the conformance criteria for documents. For readability, some of
these conformance requirements are phrased as conformance
requirements on authors; such requirements are implicitly
@@ -3014,6 +3015,11 @@
would imply that documents are not allowed to contain elements named
<code title="">foobar</code>.</p>
+<!-- The following paragraph is not included in the WHATWG copy
+because it is wrong. For example, content models are not syntax. It's
+also unnecessary. What kinds of things are conformance requirements is
+explained in the previous section, which talks about RFC 2119. -->
+
<p class="note impl">There is no implied relationship between
document conformance requirements and implementation conformance
requirements. User agents are not free to handle non-conformant
@@ -3196,8 +3202,9 @@
<dd>
<p>Authoring tools and markup generators must generate
- <a href=#conforming-documents>conforming documents</a>. Conformance criteria that apply
- to authors also apply to authoring tools, where appropriate.</p>
+ <a href=#conforming-documents>conforming
+ documents</a>. Conformance criteria that apply to authors also
+ apply to authoring tools, where appropriate.</p>
<p>Authoring tools are exempt from the strict requirements of
using elements only for their specified purpose, but only to the
@@ -3638,10 +3645,10 @@
requirements in this specification. When someone applying this
specification to their activities decides that they will recognize
the requirements of such an extension specification, it becomes an
+<!--CONFORMANCE-->
<dfn id=other-applicable-specifications title="other applicable specifications">applicable
specification</dfn> for the purposes of conformance requirements in
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
Modified: index
===================================================================
--- index 2011-04-12 22:47:26 UTC (rev 5995)
+++ index 2011-04-12 23:32:21 UTC (rev 5996)
@@ -1366,15 +1366,12 @@
W3C version since the W3C version is published as HTML4 due to <a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/07/pubrules?uimode=filter&uri=#format">W3C
publication policies</a>.</li>
-<!--
<li>The W3C version defines conformance for documents in a more
- traditional (version-orientated) way, because of <a
- href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Mar/0574.html">a
+ traditional (version-orientated) way, because of <a href=http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Mar/0574.html>a
working group decision from March 2011</a>. This specification, in
part driven by its versionless development model, instead uses a
conformance definition that more closely models how specifications
- are used in practice.</li>
--->
+ are used in practice.</li><!--CONFORMANCE-->
<li>The W3C version omits a paragraph of implementation advice
because of <a href=http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jun/0001.html>a
@@ -3001,7 +2998,8 @@
documents<span class=impl> (relevant to authors and authoring tool
implementors)</span>.</p>
- <p><dfn id=conforming-documents>Conforming documents</dfn> are those that comply with all
+ <p><dfn id=conforming-documents>Conforming
+ documents</dfn> are those that comply with all
the conformance criteria for documents. For readability, some of
these conformance requirements are phrased as conformance
requirements on authors; such requirements are implicitly
@@ -3015,6 +3013,11 @@
would imply that documents are not allowed to contain elements named
<code title="">foobar</code>.</p>
+<!-- The following paragraph is not included in the WHATWG copy
+because it is wrong. For example, content models are not syntax. It's
+also unnecessary. What kinds of things are conformance requirements is
+explained in the previous section, which talks about RFC 2119. -->
+
<p class="note impl">There is no implied relationship between
document conformance requirements and implementation conformance
requirements. User agents are not free to handle non-conformant
@@ -3197,8 +3200,9 @@
<dd>
<p>Authoring tools and markup generators must generate
- <a href=#conforming-documents>conforming documents</a>. Conformance criteria that apply
- to authors also apply to authoring tools, where appropriate.</p>
+ <a href=#conforming-documents>conforming
+ documents</a>. Conformance criteria that apply to authors also
+ apply to authoring tools, where appropriate.</p>
<p>Authoring tools are exempt from the strict requirements of
using elements only for their specified purpose, but only to the
@@ -3639,10 +3643,10 @@
requirements in this specification. When someone applying this
specification to their activities decides that they will recognize
the requirements of such an extension specification, it becomes an
+<!--CONFORMANCE-->
<dfn id=other-applicable-specifications title="other applicable specifications">applicable
specification</dfn> for the purposes of conformance requirements in
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
Modified: source
===================================================================
--- source 2011-04-12 22:47:26 UTC (rev 5995)
+++ source 2011-04-12 23:32:21 UTC (rev 5996)
@@ -107,15 +107,13 @@
href="http://www.w3.org/2005/07/pubrules?uimode=filter&uri=#format">W3C
publication policies</a>.</li>
-<!--
<li>The W3C version defines conformance for documents in a more
traditional (version-orientated) way, because of <a
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Mar/0574.html">a
working group decision from March 2011</a>. This specification, in
part driven by its versionless development model, instead uses a
conformance definition that more closely models how specifications
- are used in practice.</li>
--->
+ are used in practice.</li><!--CONFORMANCE-->
<li>The W3C version omits a paragraph of implementation advice
because of <a
@@ -1913,7 +1911,11 @@
documents<span class="impl"> (relevant to authors and authoring tool
implementors)</span>.</p>
- <p><dfn>Conforming documents</dfn> are those that comply with all
+ <p><dfn>Conforming
+<!--END html--><!--END dev-html--><!--END complete--><!--END epub--><!--CONFORMANCE--><!--VERSION-->
+ HTML5
+<!--START html--><!--START dev-html--><!--START complete--><!--START epub--><!--CONFORMANCE--><!--VERSION-->
+ documents</dfn> are those that comply with all
the conformance criteria for documents. For readability, some of
these conformance requirements are phrased as conformance
requirements on authors; such requirements are implicitly
@@ -1927,6 +1929,18 @@
would imply that documents are not allowed to contain elements named
<code title="">foobar</code>.</p>
+<!-- The following paragraph is not included in the WHATWG copy
+because it is wrong. For example, content models are not syntax. It's
+also unnecessary. What kinds of things are conformance requirements is
+explained in the previous section, which talks about RFC 2119. -->
+<!--END html--><!--END dev-html--><!--END complete--><!--END epub--><!--CONFORMANCE-->
+ <p class="note">the conformance requirements for documents include
+ syntax (the <table> element is conforming as a child of
+ <body>, but not as a child ot <title>), and semantics (the
+ <table> elements denotes a multi-dimensional data table, not a
+ piece of furniture).</p>
+<!--START html--><!--START dev-html--><!--START complete--><!--START epub--><!--CONFORMANCE-->
+
<p class="note impl">There is no implied relationship between
document conformance requirements and implementation conformance
requirements. User agents are not free to handle non-conformant
@@ -2125,8 +2139,12 @@
<dd>
<p>Authoring tools and markup generators must generate
- <span>conforming documents</span>. Conformance criteria that apply
- to authors also apply to authoring tools, where appropriate.</p>
+ <span>conforming
+<!--END html--><!--END dev-html--><!--END complete--><!--END epub--><!--CONFORMANCE--><!--VERSION-->
+ HTML5
+<!--START html--><!--START dev-html--><!--START complete--><!--START epub--><!--CONFORMANCE--><!--VERSION-->
+ documents</span>. Conformance criteria that apply to authors also
+ apply to authoring tools, where appropriate.</p>
<p>Authoring tools are exempt from the strict requirements of
using elements only for their specified purpose, but only to the
@@ -2621,10 +2639,10 @@
requirements in this specification. When someone applying this
specification to their activities decides that they will recognize
the requirements of such an extension specification, it becomes an
+<!--END w3c-html--><!--CONFORMANCE-->
<dfn title="other applicable specifications">applicable
specification</dfn> for the purposes of conformance requirements in
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
@@ -2635,7 +2653,67 @@
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>
+<!--END html--><!--END dev-html--><!--END complete--><!--END epub--><!--CONFORMANCE-->
+<!-- The following segment replaces the above in the W3C copy due to a
+WG decision. The text is not included in the WHATWG version because
+it is unrealistic: it attempts to apply conformance criteria to other
+specifications, which can easily just ignore them, and it attempts to
+define a term uniformly ("conforming HTML5 document"), even though
+another specification could just redefine that term, making this whole
+thing meaningless. It also seems to contradict itself, saying both
+that other specs can't affect if a document is conforming or not, and
+saying that if another spec redefines the semantics of HTML, that a
+document can stop being conforming if one considers another spec as
+applying to that document. The text above, as seen in the WHATWG spec,
+is a much more accurate model of reality: it admits up front that what
+is conforming depends on which specs apply, and leaves it at that. -->
+
+<!-- This e-mail goes into some more depth regarding this topic:
+ http://www.w3.org/mid/17E341CD-E790-422C-9F9A-69347EE01CEB@iki.fi
+-->
+
+<!--START w3c-html--><!--CONFORMANCE-->
+ <dfn title="other applicable specifications">applicable
+ specification</dfn>.
+
+ <p>The conformance terminology for documents depends on the nature
+ of the changes introduced by such applicable specificactions, and on
+ the content and intended interpretation of the document. Applicable
+ specifications MAY define new document content (e.g. a foobar
+ element), MAY prohibit certain otherwise conforming content (e.g.
+ prohibit use of <table>s), or MAY change the semantics, DOM
+ mappings, or other processing rules for content defined in this
+ specification. Whether a document is or is not a <a
+ href="#conforming-documents">conforming HTML5 document</a> does not
+ depend on the use of applicable specifications: if the syntax and
+ semantics of a given <a href="#conforming-documents">conforming
+ HTML5 document </a>document is unchanged by the use of applicable
+ specification(s), then that document remains a <a
+ href="#conforming-documents">conforming HTML5 document</a>. If the
+ semantics or processing of a given (otherwise conforming) document
+ is changed by use of applicable specification(s), then it is not a
+ <a href="#conforming-documents">conforming HTML5 document</a>. For
+ such cases, the applicable specifications SHOULD define conformance
+ terminology.</p>
+
+ <p class="note">As a suggested but not required convention, such
+ specifications might define conformance terminology such as:
+ "Conforming HTML5+X<!---->XX document", where X!<---->XX is a short
+ name for the applicable specification. (Example: "Conforming
+ HTML5+AutomotiveExtensions document").</p>
+
+ <p class="note">a consequence of the rule given above is that
+ certain syntactically correct HTML5 documents may not be <a
+ href="#conforming-documents">conforming HTML5 documents</a> in the
+ presence of applicable specifications. (Example: the applicable
+ specification defines <table> to be a piece of furniture —
+ a document written to that specification and containing a <table>
+ element is NOT a <a href="#conforming-documents">conforming HTML5
+ document</a>, even if the element happens to be syntactically
+ correct HTML5.)</p>
+<!--START html--><!--START dev-html--><!--START complete--><!--START epub--><!--CONFORMANCE-->
+
<hr>
<p>User agents must treat elements and attributes that they do not
More information about the Commit-Watchers
mailing list