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

QA Framework comment [was: Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2005 May 11]

From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 12:49:39 -0400
Message-ID: <F13E1BF26B19BA40AF3C0DE7D4DA0C03048280D4@ati-mail01.arbortext.local>
To: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Cc: "public-xml-core-wg" <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>

I hope others chime in, because I don't know how to answer.

At [1], I read:

  Clearly identify the class of products (i.e., type of
  products or services) upon which the requirements are imposed.

and I ask myself whether I'd be able to do that for, say,
the xml:id spec in such a way that would allow xml:id to
go to PR, and I can't.  I either don't understand what's
wanted and/or I can't figure out how to identify upon what
products xml:id is imposing what requirements.

So I'm sitting here thinking that I'd never be able to get
xml:id to go to PR if the QA Framework requirement is
imposed upon us.

If others think they understand what we'd have to do to
xml:id (just to take one example) to satisfy the QA Framework
requirement being imposed, then I guess it's just me, and
we can forget making any WG response.

Henry, if you think you know how to make our specs comply
with whatever this QA requirement is, given that you are
the WG staff contact, then we can just have you add the
necessary parts to any of our specs to have them comply.
Just so long as I don't have to do it, because I couldn't.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Henry S. Thompson [mailto:ht@inf.ed.ac.uk] 
> Sent: Thursday, 12 May, 2005 6:45
> To: Paul Grosso
> Cc: public-xml-core-wg
> Subject: Re: Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2005 May 11
> Paul Grosso writes:
> >> We've received a response from the QA group on our
> >> comment about QA Framework.  See Paul's message
> >> summarizing this at
> >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005May/0004
> >
> > Paul doesn't feel their response addresses our concerns,
> > and he feels that we should push back on this.
> >
> > DV, Richard, and Henry tend to agree with Paul (though
> > they may not feel as strongly about how much of a fuss
> > to make).
> >
> > ACTION to Henry:  Draft a response to
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005May/0041
> > making it clear this is an XML Core WG issue/comment,
> > making it clear we aren't satisfied with the response,
> > and trying to make it clearer what we're trying to say.
> After looking more closely at the new draft [1] and our original
> comment [2] I guess I don't now see what to say.  I think it's clear
> that just being a member of a named product class doesn't make you
> non-conforming, that always only happens if you _claim_ conformance.
> Is what we want something that makes clear that a particular product
> may be a member of different classes wrt different specs?  So e.g. a
> UA may be a parser wrt XML but an API wrt DOM?
> Or something that makes it clear that if a product in a covered class
> is included or exploited in/by another product, then for the purposes
> of conformance to the spec in question, the other product is _also_
> covered?
> ht
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/#what-conform
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005Jan/0025
> -- 
>  Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, 
> University of Edinburgh
>                      Half-time member of W3C Team
>     2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 
> 131 650-4440
>             Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
>                    URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
> [mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without 
> it is forged spam]
Received on Thursday, 12 May 2005 16:50:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:34 UTC