This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 4806 - Prepare list of places in the spec to consider using \"implementation defined\" vs \"implementation dependent\"
Summary: Prepare list of places in the spec to consider using \"implementation defined...
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: SML
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Core+Interchange Format (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: PC Windows XP
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Virginia Smith
QA Contact: SML Working Group discussion list
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2007-06-27 23:08 UTC by Bassam Tabbara
Modified: 2007-07-09 20:32 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:

Attachments

Description Bassam Tabbara 2007-06-27 23:08:41 UTC
Comment 1 Virginia Smith 2007-07-09 20:32:38 UTC 
Fixed 3 places where this term is currently used. 

The following text from Section 7 of "Variability in Specifications" spec (http://www.w3.org/TR/spec-variability/) discusses implementation-defined behavior vs. implementation-dependent behavior.

"An 'implementation-dependent feature' is one whose end result must occur, but the behavior that leads to that end result is discretionary. ... users of the technology will need to know the behavior of any given implementation, and  [the specification authors] chose not to force uniform behavior."

This can be contrasted to 'implementation-defined behavior' that the specification authors choose to leave unspecified (and not required). A common example of this is the behavior when multiple errors are present in the input.