A. Conformance
Conformant processors must implement all of the features described in this specification except those that are explicitly identified as optional.
Some aspects of processor behavior are not completely specified; those features are either implementation-dependent or implementation-defined.
[Definition: An implementation-dependent feature is one where the implementation has discretion in how it is performed. Implementations are not required to document or explain how implementation-dependent features are performed.]
[Definition: An implementation-defined feature is one where the implementation has discretion in how it is performed. Conformant implementations must document how implementation-defined features are performed.]
The following features are implementation-defined:
- Conformant processors must support directory paths whose scheme is file. It is implementation-defined what other schemes are supported by p:directory-list, and what the interpretation of ‘directory’, ‘file’ and ‘contents’ is for those schemes. See Section 2, “p:directory-list”.
- Any file or directory determined to be special by the p:directory-list step may be output using a c:other element but the criteria for marking a file as special are implementation-defined. See Section 2, “p:directory-list”.
- The precise meaning of these properties are implementation-defined and may vary according to the URI scheme of the path. See Section 2.1, “Directory list details”.
- Any other attributes on c:file, c:directory, or c:other are implementation-defined. See Section 2.1, “Directory list details”.
- Conformant processors must support URIs whose scheme is file for the href and target options of p:file-copy. It is implementation-defined what other schemes are supported by p:file-copy, and what the interpretation of ‘directory’, ‘file’ and ‘contents’ is for those schemes. See Section 3, “p:file-copy”.
- Conformant processors must support URIs whose scheme is file for the href option of p:file-delete. It is implementation-defined what other schemes are supported by p:file-delete, and what the interpretation of ‘directory’, ‘file’ and ‘contents’ is for those schemes. See Section 4, “p:file-delete”.
- Conformant processors must support URIs whose scheme is file for the href option of p:file-info. It is implementation-defined what other schemes are supported by p:file-info, and what the interpretation of ‘directory’, ‘file’ and ‘contents’ is for those schemes. See Section 5, “p:file-info”.
- Conformant processors must support URIs whose scheme is file for the href option of p:file-mkdir. It is implementation-defined what other schemes are supported by p:file-mkdir, and what the interpretation of ‘directory’, ‘file’ and ‘contents’ is for those schemes. See Section 6, “p:file-mkdir”.
- Conformant processors must support URIs whose scheme is file for the href and target options of p:file-move. It is implementation-defined what other schemes are supported by p:file-move, and what the interpretation of ‘directory’, ‘file’ and ‘contents’ is for those schemes. See Section 7, “p:file-move”.
- Conformant processors must support URIs whose scheme is file for the href option of p:file-create-tempfile. It is implementation-defined what other schemes are supported by p:file-create-tempfile, and what the interpretation of ‘directory’, ‘file’ and ‘contents’ is for those schemes. See Section 8, “p:file-create-tempfile”.
- Conformant processors must support URIs whose scheme is file for the href option of p:file-touch. It is implementation-defined what other schemes are supported by p:file-touch, and what the interpretation of ‘directory’, ‘file’ and ‘contents’ is for those schemes. See Section 9, “p:file-touch”.
The following features are implementation-dependent: