13490 2011-08-01 02:47:14 +0000 Section 2.2.1, Conformance Classes: Conformance Checkers has an awkwardly worded sentence 2011-08-15 20:25:56 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified HTML WG LC1 HTML5 spec unspecified PC Windows NT RESOLVED WONTFIX P2 normal --- 1 kelly.ford ian ian kelly.ford mike public-html-admin public-html-wg-issue-tracking public-html-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 51884 0 kelly.ford 2011-08-01 02:47:14 +0000 Current: (This is only a "SHOULD" and not a "MUST" requirement because it has been proven to be impossible. [COMPUTABLE]) Proposed: This is only a SHOULD and not a MUST requirement because exhaustive and complete testing of all failure cases would be impossible. Reason: If such a requirement is completely impossible, the requirement should likely not exist. The proposed wording better reflects the nature of such a requirement. 53416 1 mike 2011-08-04 05:13:40 +0000 mass-move component to LC1 55137 2 ian 2011-08-15 20:25:56 +0000 EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html Status: Rejected Change Description: no spec change Rationale: The wording is fine as is.