Subject: Re: Why Doesn't IE5 use the DTD to Validate? From: Chris Lilley <chris@xxxxxx> Date: Sun, 04 Apr 1999 20:14:20 +0200 |
Didier PH Martin wrote: > Here is the solution Chris W3C should include the authors with each > specification to provide additionnal tacit knowledge not contained in the > specs. :-))). I believe this is politely termed an out of band reference. Or, perhaps, a publishing opportunity. Actually, once such a missing piece has been identified and agreed upon then a) if it was the original intention, is editorial, and is one valid interpretation of what was actually said, then it should go in the eratta and eventually in a new edition of the original version b) if it is a design change, it should go in a new document version > However, your point about considering the inclusion of the ELEMENT in the > DTD as a switch indicating validation is a good idea. Why not write and > publish a note Because I need to see what others say about it first. In particular, I think James agreed with me but I have not seen comments from Tim, Jean or CMSQ as to whether this is correct. > so that now, implementers could get access to this "tacit" > knowledge and then transform it into "explicit" knowledge. A better way to do this is to add it to the eratta or to a new spec, depending on what the WG feels is the best course. A Note has no real status (its justa concret record of an idea), and cannot alter the conformance clauses of a Recommendation. > Thanks in advance > if you do that, it will be more profitable than saying that Microsoft is > wrong. Well, if they (or anyone else) are wrong then I will still say so. However, I checked their site and it does not claim that IE5 is a validating parser, that I can see, so no false claims have beem made and the only confusion is with folks who were using the beta (*which is still a large poulation, of course). > At least it will prevent us to do the same mistake and W3C will learn > the difference between "tacit" and "explicit" knowledge. We aren't all joined at the hip, you know ;-) so tell that to the document editors, not me. But, I have been editor of documents that were later found to have ambiguities, so I'm not claiming perfection nor decrying the lack of it in others. And W3C does recognise the need to staighten these things out as they are discovered. Its called "post-Recommendation work" or, more informally "care and feeding of recs". -- Chris XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: Why Doesn't IE5 use the DTD to, Didier PH Martin | Thread | Re: Why Doesn't IE5 use the DTD to, James Clark |
SUMMARY: XML Validation Issues (was, Sall, Ken | Date | Re: Why Doesn't IE5 use the DTD to , Chris Lilley |
Month |