W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > May 2005

Response to XML Core comment on QA Framework

From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 13:29:50 -0400
Message-ID: <F13E1BF26B19BA40AF3C0DE7D4DA0C03045B6BBD@ati-mail01.arbortext.local>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>

We have received a response to our comment on 
the QA Framework spec (reproduced below).

By way of review, we had said:

 It is not clear how to define a class of
 product, and it is not clear what the full set of classes
 of products might be.  We don't believe there are (or
 could be) clear definitions of distinct classes, and
 we are concerned that any attempt to list classes
 affected by a spec might end up excluding some products
 for which the spec should apply.

 For example, it isn't clear if xml:id is applicable to
 an XHTML browser UA.  It depends on whether the UA
 relies on a parser of other xml processor that has
 implemented xml:id (in which case xml:id doesn't
 apply directly to the UA) or whether the UA does its
 own id recognition.

The QA WG has said:

 The QA Working Group thinks that clarifying the extent to 
 which a specification is expected to list its classes 
 of products - namely, for those for which it defines 
 conformance requirements - should address the XML Core 
 Working Group concerns.

and then they twiddled the wording in the spec somewhat.

I don't personally feel any better about the spec now
than I did before, but maybe it's just me.  What do
other people think about this?

paul

-----Original Message-----
From: Karl Dubost [mailto:karl@w3.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, 03 May, 2005 11:09
To: www-qa@w3.org
Cc: Paul Grosso
Subject: Answer to Paul Grosso about Classes of Products

Dear Paul,

Thanks for your comments on the Last Call version of the QA Framework:
Specification Guidelines[0] - 22 November 2004

After two weeks from now (on May 18, 2005), the lack of answer will  
be considered as if you had accepted the comment.

Thank you for your SpecGL review comments [1].  We appreciate your  
concerns expressed about "classes of products".  Your issue regarding  
"classes of products" was entered as issue #1052 [2].  The QA Working  
Group accepted the comment, and we have revised the wording around  
Good Practice 01 [3], Good Practice 03 [4], and the Glossary [5] to  
clarify the definition and scope of "classes of products".

[0] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-qaframe-spec-20041122/
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005Jan/0025
[2] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1052
[3]
http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-qaframe-spec-20050428/#conformance-model-gp
[4]
http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-qaframe-spec-20050428/#conformance-claim-gp
[5] http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-qaframe-spec-20050428/#glossary

-- 
Karl Dubost
QA Working Group Chair
http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/
Received on Tuesday, 3 May 2005 17:31:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:32 GMT