- From: poot <cvsmail@w3.org>
- Date: 2011年4月12日 19:34:16 -0400
- To: public-html-diffs@w3.org
- Message-Id: <E1Q9n68-00060q-6f@jay.w3.org>
hixie: apply wg decision (whatwg r5996) http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/html5/spec/Overview.html?r1=1.4817&r2=1.4818&f=h http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=5995&to=5996 =================================================================== RCS file: /sources/public/html5/spec/Overview.html,v retrieving revision 1.4817 retrieving revision 1.4818 diff -u -d -r1.4817 -r1.4818 --- Overview.html 12 Apr 2011 22:13:52 -0000 1.4817 +++ Overview.html 12 Apr 2011 23:32:26 -0000 1.4818 @@ -2545,7 +2545,11 @@ 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-html5-documents">Conforming +<!--CONFORMANCE--><!--VERSION--> + HTML5 +<!--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 @@ -2559,6 +2563,18 @@ 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. --> +<!--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> +<!--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 @@ -2741,8 +2757,12 @@ <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-html5-documents">conforming +<!--CONFORMANCE--><!--VERSION--> + HTML5 +<!--CONFORMANCE--><!--VERSION--> + 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 @@ -3168,19 +3188,41 @@ specification to their activities decides that they will recognize the requirements of such an extension specification, it becomes an <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 --> + specification</dfn>. - <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> + <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> +<!--CONFORMANCE--> <hr><p>User agents must treat elements and attributes that they do not understand as semantically neutral; leaving them in the DOM (for DOM
Received on Tuesday, 12 April 2011 23:34:18 UTC