On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 08:52 -0800, Paul Hoffman wrote: > At 10:15 AM +0100 3/15/06, Henry Story wrote: > >I'd like to mention that I do find the discussion here (appart > >perhaps from the commit rights) very interesting. It is practical > >and touches on a lot of interesting issues. > > Fully agree. It was the "commit rights" and "what should our > particular validator be testing" discussion that should happen > elsewhere.
The 'what should the validator be testing' discussion (at least the part I'm participating in) is concerned with figuring out how to deterministically tell whether an implementation is conformant without giving false negatives for more elaborate implementations, and seems to be shaking out ambiguities in the spec. Is that not appropriate for this list? - Michael Bernstein
