Sorry, Dennis. "Conformable" as a term doesn't work well. I don't think
that we should, in an international standard, be using subtle grammatical
variations to express important distinctions in terminology, especially
when introducing a novel term. There is too great a risk that it will
not stand up to translation to other languages, especially when we already
have "conforming", "conformance" and "conformant" as terms.
But I'm certainly open to alternatives. Why not something like "Extended"
conformance class? That seems clear enough.
-Rob
"Dennis E. Hamilton" <> wrote on 02/06/2009
07:15:45 PM:
>
> I'm still arguing for conformable (which is suggestive of the situation,
> where in a hosted thing, you're not expected to be able to ignore the
new
> elements and it probably have to identify the hosting in some way) at
the
> ceiling and (strictly) conforming at the stricter level. If strict is
not
> usable because it is a term of art in OASIS specification (although we
are
> not following the document that uses that definition), I'll give up
about
> that. But I bet strict conformance sticks in popular use, even though
> informally. I also think you'll here people talking about OpenDocument
> conformance (without the "document").
>
