OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   RE: [xml-dev] xPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0 ... size increase over v1.0

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

At 02:39 PM 6/20/2003, Simon St.Laurent wrote:
>At 10:42 AM 6/20/2003 -0500, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>>Are the W3C implementations *reference* implementations
>>or *sample* implementations?

They are not reference implementations, they are sample implementations.

>>IOW, how is the implementation
>>tied to the specification in terms of features and proof
>>of conforming and compliant implementation?

In W3C terms, you are asking what the entrance criteria are for Proposed 


Here's the relevant portion:

>Entrance criteria. Before advancing a technical report to Proposed 
>Recommendation, the Director must be satisfied that:
>    * the Working Group has fulfilled the relevant requirements of the 
> Working Group charter and those of any accompanying requirements 
> documents. The Director must be satisfied with the rationale for any 
> relevant requirements that have not been fulfilled;
>    * the Working Group has 
> <http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010719/process.html#formal-address>formally 
> addressed issues raised during the previous review or implementation 
> period (possibly modifying the technical report);
>    * the Working Group has reported all 
> <http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010719/process.html#WGArchiveMinorityViews>formal 
> objections;
>    * each feature of the technical report has been implemented. 
> Preferably, the Working Group should be able to demonstrate two 
> interoperable implementations of each feature. If the Director believes 
> that immediate Advisory Committee review is critical to the success of a 
> technical report, the Director may advance the technical report to 
> Proposed Recommendation even without adequate implementation experience. 
> In this case, the technical report status section should indicate why the 
> Director advanced the technical report directly to Proposed Recommendation;
>    * the Working Group has satisfied any other announced entrance 
> criteria (e.g., any announced in the request to advance to Candidate 
> Recommendation).
So each feature must be implemented, and there is a strong preference for 
two *interoperable* implementations of each feature, where the criteria for 
determining interoperability is left to the Working Groups.

>>Are any public source?

There is no requirement that an implementation be public source. In most 
cases, there is an open source implementation, but keep in mind that the 
implementation is not normative in any way.

>>Are they tied normatively to the spec or informatively?

They are tied to the spec only as an existence proof, showing that the spec 
can be implemented.



News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS