W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > May 2008

Re: Deterministic Conformance Requirments [was: Re: HTML Action Item 54 - ...draft text for HTML 5 spec to require producers/authors to include @alt on img elements.]

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 08:19:56 +0900
Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Dave Singer <singer@apple.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>, wai-liaison@w3.org, Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>
Message-Id: <314FD9B7-6735-409C-94E9-61B7D31AF449@w3.org>
To: James Graham <jg307@cam.ac.uk>


Le 13 mai 2008 à 07:51, James Graham a écrit :
> I don't think making a big deal of the distinction between machine  
> checkable and non-machine checkable conformance requirements is very  
> useful in the context of HTML.

http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/#what-conform
It is not that much about machine or non-machine checkable. It is  
really about class of products.

The issue is that the class or products are defined at the top of the  
spec but are rarely tied to specific requirements in the specification  
prose. Once the Class of Product have been defined, we have a grid for  
reading the spec.

* I'm a browser implementer, I read the spec. What are the conformance  
requirements for my product?
* I'm an authoring tool implementer, I read the spec. What are the  
conformance requirements for my product?
* etc.



* QA Framework: Specification Guidelines
   http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/
* Variability in Specifications
   http://www.w3.org/TR/spec-variability/

-- 
Karl Dubost - W3C
http://www.w3.org/QA/
Be Strict To Be Cool
Received on Monday, 12 May 2008 23:20:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:17 GMT