HTML Standard Tracker

Diff (omit for latest revision)
Filter

Short URL: http://html5.org/r/5996

File a bug

SVNBugCommentTime (UTC)
59969178apply wg decision2011-04-12 23:32
Index: source
===================================================================
--- source	(revision 5995)
+++ source	(revision 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 &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 @@
    <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 &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>
 
   <p>User agents must treat elements and attributes that they do not

|