CR Comment: conformance for markup, a processor, or both?

Raised by:
Ralph Swick
Opened on:
In [1] Noah Mendelsohn writes

  "I tend to feel that specification of a lanuage and its mapping
  to things like default graphs is quite a different thing from
  the specification of a piece of software with certain required
  outputs.  ...

  "Thus my preference, and its only a preference, would be to
  see the definition of default graph retained for reference
  by other specifications, but the definition of processor
  conformance moved either to a separate document or perhaps
  to a normative appendix of the syntax and processing document.
  I think a more appropriate title for such a section might be:
  "Conformance requirements for general purpose RDFa processors" ..."

Related emails:
  1. ISSUE-126: CR Comment: conformance for markup, a processor, or both? (from on 2008-08-28)
  2. ISSUE-127: CR Comment: [Noah Mendelsohn] Comments on RDFa in XHTML: Syntax and processing (from on 2008-08-28)

Related notes:

2008-08-28: See also [ISSUE-127] containing Noah's remaining comments that the Task Force intends to accept. [ISSUE-127]

2008-08-28: Postponed, per TF telcon of 2008-08-28

2008-08-28: Response to Noah is

2008-09-02: ACTION: Postponed

2008-09-02: COMMENTER-RESPONSE: Accept. "Thank you for your careful attention to my concerns. I provide some detailed responses below, but to get immediately to the question that tends to be of greatest interest to working groups that are trying to move forward: yes, the responses and proposals you give below are acceptable to me should you wish to move forward without further changes. Thus, the additional suggestions I make below are just for your consideration: if you find them helpful, feel free to adapt some or all, and if not that's OK too. Either way, feel free to proceed without further coordination with me.