Revised document conformance text

[Jesper Lund Stocholm]

Hi all,

I think we should keep the subclasses. What you are talking about sounds
more like an application profile than a conformance class/requirement to
me.



Med venlig hilsen / Best regards

Jesper Lund Stocholm

CIBER Danmark A/S
Mobil: +45 3094 5570
Email: jesper.stocholm at ciber.dk



CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE AND NOTICE REGARDING NO ELECTRONIC SIGNATURE: The
materials in this electronic transmission (including attachments) may be
subject to attorney-client or work product privilege, may be private and
confidential and are the property of the sender. The information
contained is intended only for the named addressee(s) and should not be
considered evidence of intent to be bound to any agreement. The taking
of any action in reliance on the contents is strictly prohibited. If you
are not the intended recipient of this message, please immediately
notify the sender and promptly delete this message.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) [mailto:eb2m-mrt at asahi-net.or.jp]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 12:52 PM
> To: e-SC34-WG4 at ecma-international.org
> Subject: Re: Revised document conformance text
> 
> Chris,
> 
> I think that the three subclasses were introduced since some
application
> programs can handle only one of WML, PML, and SML.
> 
> One could argue that we should either go further (such as "WML
> strict-horizontal-writing-only-black-and-white-only") or stop at
"Strict".
> How do people feel?
> 
> If we really drop the subclasses, we have to be thorough.  Part 4 has
14
> occurrences of "ML Transitional" and 3 occurrences of "ML strict",
while
> Part 1 has 17 occurrences of "ML strict" and 6 occurrences of "ML
> transitional"
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> Makoto