Revised document conformance text
Chris.Rae at microsoft.com
Mon Jul 18 19:25:14 CEST 2011
Hi Murata-san - thanks very much for reviewing our text! Alex and I removed these conformance classes because we thought they were only referred to inside the conformance clauses themselves and we thought they didn't provide any added value. Any document that conforms to Part 1 is Strict, and we didn't see a need for separate WML/PML/SML strict conformance classes.
However, I now notice that "WML Strict" is actually referred to inside 17.2.3 (in the informative text of an example). If WG4 agree that these classes are unnecessary inside Document Conformance then I will update our proposal to reword this example - what do WG4 think?
From: MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) [mailto:eb2m-mrt at asahi-net.or.jp]
Sent: 18 July 2011 06:12
To: e-SC34-WG4 at ecma-international.org
Subject: Re: Revised document conformance text
Thanks for the revised text.
But if I am not mistaken, it drops the definitions of three document conformance classes: WML Strict, SML Strict, and PML Strict.
More information about the sc34wg4