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

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

From: Dmitry Lenkov <Dmitry.Lenkov@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 14:23:26 -0700
Message-ID: <4283C94E.6090205@oracle.com>
To: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>, "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
CC: public-xml-core-wg <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>

I agree with Paul. Dmitry

Paul Grosso wrote:

>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
>>>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
>>>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_
>>[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 21:23:40 UTC

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