On Jun 19, 2007, at 2:03 PM, Rotan Hanrahan wrote:
Despite my earlier indication to refrain from further comment, I
return because I observe some discussion is taking place.
I propose that the text that introduces an algorithm in the
normative section be phrased something like the following (based on
an idea suggested in Anne's most recent email to this list):
"The value of the text response entity body MUST be determined by
the agent as if it had run the following algorithm:"
This, I believe, provides the necessary clarity and flexibility
while providing the necessary formal functional definition.
I think saying "as if" is good for total avoidance of ambiguity. I
think just saying "the algorithm is" would be worse than the current
language, since it leaves it completely unclear what the conformance
requirement is.
Regards,
Maciej
Regards,
---Rotan.
________________________________
From: Bjoern Hoehrmann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tue 19/06/2007 21:55
To: Anne van Kesteren
Cc: Rotan Hanrahan; public-webapi@w3.org
Subject: Re: Status of algorithms
* Anne van Kesteren wrote:
How about:
Conformance requirements phrased as algorithms or specific steps
may
be implemented in any manner, so long as the end result is
equivalent.
The problem is not with the conformance section, it is with the
specific
requirements regarding algorithm use, phrases like "must use this
algo-
rithm" if using that particular algorithm is not actually required are
confusing and should be changed. You could simply introduce the
specific
algorithms with "The algorithm is:" and note in the conformance
section
that where given, implementations must implement an algorithm
producing
the same results as that in the specification; that would remove
much of
the confusion.
--
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] · http://
bjoern.hoehrmann.de <http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de/>
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://
www.bjoernsworld.de <http://www.bjoernsworld.de/>
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://
www.websitedev.de/