[e] (0) try to clarify the applicable spec stuff

Fixing http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9178 git-svn-id: http://svn.whatwg.org/webapps@5605 340c8d12-0b0e-0410-8428-c7bf67bfef74
whatwg · Oct 12, 2010 · 60c773b · 60c773b
1 parent ef037cc
commit 60c773b
Show file tree

Hide file tree

Showing 3 changed files with 30 additions and 0 deletions.
diff --git a/complete.html b/complete.html
@@ -3456,6 +3456,16 @@ <h4 id=extensibility><span class=secno>2.2.2 </span>Extensibility</h4>
   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),

diff --git a/index b/index
@@ -3433,6 +3433,16 @@ a.setAttribute('href', 'http://example.com/'); // change the content attribute d
   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),

diff --git a/source b/source
@@ -2440,6 +2440,16 @@ a.setAttribute('href', 'http://example.com/'); // change the content attribute d
   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