Revised document conformance text

[Chris Rae]

I've attached an updated version of my proposed conformance text. The only difference between this and the previous version is the addition of the bulleted list of conformance classes (WML Strict, SML Strict, PML Strict) at the end of the conformance clause for Part 1 (and a corresponding set of transitional classes for Part 4).

I believe this answers all of the comments on the email thread except for Murata-san's comment below regarding adding a normative reference to Part 4 from Part 1. Personally I'd rather not do this, as I don't think it's required and it goes against the spirit of Strict being implementable without reading Part 4.

We should review this again in Busan, but it would be good if we could agree on this text before that so that Rex will have a chance to circulate it to other interested parties.

Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) [mailto:eb2m-mrt at asahi-net.or.jp] 
Sent: 04 August 2011 01:18
To: e-SC34-WG4 at ecma-international.org
Subject: Re: Revised document conformance text

> Hi all - thanks for the responses here. Alex, to your point, I myself also wondered whether we ought to document the existence of the Transitional conformance class in Strict. We could instead make the ST_Conformance class a union of one member (as we've done in similar instances) and add the "Transitional" member in Part 4. But then, of course, it seems odd to have the "Strict" conformance class in transitional, so we probably ought to remove it... at which point we end up with some very strange looking types and once again breaking the concept of Transitional being a superset of Strict. So I thought it was probably best to leave both members in Strict, while excluding the use of one of them. Open to other suggestions, though.

I had a look at other occurrences of "transitional".  I now feel that we should not try to eliminate the word "transitional" from Part 1.  
It is not impossible to do so, but the result will be harder to read.
I now think that we should even add Part 4 as a normative reference in Part 1.
 
> Jesper/Murata-san - I didn't make it clear in my first mail, but we will actually continue to have six application conformance classes (that conformance clause is unchanged by these DRs) - we'd just have only two document conformance classes. An application that supported, say, only strict WML, can claim to support the application conformance class "WML Strict"; however the documents it opened would be of document conformance class "Strict" and category "Wordprocessing", instead of being of document conformance class "WML Strict".

I now understand  your intention.  But 2.5 of Part 1 and 2.2 of Part4 also has to be changed, since they use "WML Strict" as a document conformance class for defining the application conformance clas "WML Strict".

Regards,
Makoto

> 
> Chris
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jesper Lund Stocholm [mailto:jesper.stocholm at ciber.dk]
> Sent: 02 August 2011 11:45
> To: MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given); e-SC34-WG4 at ecma-international.org
> Subject: RE: Revised document conformance text
> 
> Hi Murata-San,
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) [mailto:eb2m-mrt at asahi-net.or.jp]
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 2:49 PM
> > To: e-SC34-WG4 at ecma-international.org
> > Subject: Re: Revised document conformance text
> > 
> > I have no problems in keeping the subclasses, but what is the
> difference
> > between application profiles and conformance classes?
> 
> Well, as I understand it, application profiles are usually made and maintained outside of the standard itself.
> 
> 
> 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.



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: DR 09-0316 changes both Parts.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 67017 bytes
Desc: DR 09-0316 changes both Parts.docx
URL: <http://mailman.vse.cz/pipermail/sc34wg4/attachments/20110830/8e7dff7c/attachment-0001.bin>