- From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 18:54:51 +0900
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Cc: "T.V Raman" <raman@google.com>, roger@456bereastreet.com, public-html@w3.org
Le 2 mai 2007 à 06:48, Maciej Stachowiak a écrit :
> Regardless of who concurs or not, it is true. Split conformance
> requirements are a matter of fact, not opinion. Here is a specific
> example, from the definition of the 'img' element:
>
> <http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#the-img>
>
> Now, it's possible to debate whether the spec goes far enough in
> splitting user agent and document requirements. But whether it does
> so at all is not debatable.
It doesn't do it in a very effective way and not very visible indeed.
Again and again,
1. [define class of products][1]
2. identify each categories
3. address each categories with conformance requirements
*systematically*
1. is mostly done with maybe things missing. (on my QA review to come)
2. is not done as in
Web browsers and other interactive user agents -> key1
Non-interactive presentation user agents -> key2
3. is not done at all
Right now the specification shows a green block of text which seemed
to be the requirements and then there is text which seems
instructions. There might be improvement to write for the [how to
read the specifications][2]
I'm pretty sure there is a question of layout and labeling the
specification. That would require a refactoring. Maybe designing a
template for each individual things.
[1]: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#conformance
[2]: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#how-to
--
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager, QA Activity Lead
QA Weblog - http://www.w3.org/QA/
*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Tuesday, 8 May 2007 09:55:46 UTC