Revised document conformance text

[Chris Rae]

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?

Chris

-----Original Message-----
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

Chris,

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.


Cheers,
Makoto