This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
As discussed at the wg f2f meeting on October 28, 2008: msm: we have some statements in SML spec that use MAY or MUST regarding model processors therefore we should add an entry in the "Conformance" section for model processors. ... RESOLUTION: Add the first two lines proposed by MSM to the SML Conformance Section. [That is, "A conforming SML [or: SML-IF] processor is one which satisfies all the constraints imposed on processors elsewhere in this specification."]
I do want to clarify this, since the meeting (and the minutes) reflect terms that language lawyer might assert are new. I think the intent was to add the following: SML: "A conforming SML model processor is one which satisfies all the constraints imposed on model processors elsewhere in this specification." > I inserted the word "model" above, 2x, to match existing 2.2 content. SMLIF: "A conforming SML-IF processor is one which satisfies all the constraints imposed on processors elsewhere in this specification." > I just removed the SML parts of the resolution, leaving the SMLIF specific bit SMLIF mentions "processors", without defining that term, in 4 places: 2.2 impl-defined 2.2 impl-dep 4.4 schema bindings (non-normative) 5.1 conformance (added via f2f resolution, text above) The wg appears to have at least the following routes out of LLH on this issue: (a) define processors, presumably == producers + consumers (b) replace the existing 3 "processors" with terms already defined (c) assert "good enough" and make no further changes to the f2f resolution Existing 2.2 text from LC2 draft: Implementation-Defined An implementation-defined feature or behavior may vary among processors conforming to this specification; the precise behavior is not specified by this specification but MUST be specified by the implementor for each particular conforming implementation. Implementation-Dependent An implementation-dependent feature or behavior may vary among processors conforming to this specification; the precise behavior is not specified by this or any other W3C specification and is not required to be specified by the implementor for any particular implementation.
The SML spec was already fixed (with 'model' inserted) by Bug 6188. I don't believe that there was any intent (at the time) to change the SML-IF spec when this item was discussed at the meeting.
11/6 telecon agreed with Ginny in comment #2 *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 6188 ***