Lachlan Hunt wrote:
Validators should not be non-conformant simply because they
only do their job to validate a document and nothing else. I
don't see any reason why such a statement needs to be
included at all.
I don't see anything about validators. I only read about
"Conformance checkers".
In the note in that section [1]:
| Conformance checkers that only perform validation are
non-conformant,
So? That doesn't make it a validator. A conformance checker might do
things validators do too, but that doesn't make it one.
In fact, now that I've read it again, it seems rather contradictory.
How?
I would argue that conformance requirements that cannot be expressed
by a DTD *are* constraints that require interpretation by the author.
Not really. Think about:
<http://annevankesteren.nl/archives/2003/09/invalid-after-validated>
Therefore, that section seems to be saying that validators are exempt
from checking some things, but are non-conformant for not checking
them anyway.
Note that this is about more than just validating and isn't about
validators.
--
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
