Skip to content
Permalink
Browse files

[e] (0) apply wg decision

Fixing http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9178

git-svn-id: http://svn.whatwg.org/webapps@5996 340c8d12-0b0e-0410-8428-c7bf67bfef74
  • Loading branch information...
Hixie committed Apr 12, 2011
1 parent 210f19e commit 264a0df981e94c8955b0ccab8beaee423d373206
Showing with 109 additions and 20 deletions.
  1. +11 −4 complete.html
  2. +13 −9 index
  3. +85 −7 source
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
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
<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
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
22 index
W3C version since the W3C version is published as HTML4 due to <a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/07/pubrules?uimode=filter&amp;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
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
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
<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
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
92 source
@@ -107,15 +107,13 @@
href="http://www.w3.org/2005/07/pubrules?uimode=filter&amp;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 @@ a.setAttribute('href', 'http://example.com/'); // change the content attribute d
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 @@ a.setAttribute('href', 'http://example.com/'); // change the content attribute d
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 &lt;table> element is conforming as a child of
&lt;body>, but not as a child ot &lt;title>), and semantics (the
&lt;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 @@ a.setAttribute('href', 'http://example.com/'); // change the content attribute d
<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 @@ a.setAttribute('href', 'http://example.com/'); // change the content attribute d
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
@@ -2635,6 +2653,66 @@ a.setAttribute('href', 'http://example.com/'); // change the content attribute d
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 &lt;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 &lt;table> to be a piece of furniture &#8212;
a document written to that specification and containing a &lt;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>

0 comments on commit 264a0df

Please sign in to comment.
You can’t perform that action at this time.