W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > August 2002

Re: A few comments on SpecGL

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 07:15:08 -0600
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020802070909.02d97880@rockynet.com>
To: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org

At 07:45 AM 8/2/2002 -0400, Lynne Rosenthal wrote:
>I've been out of things for awhile

Welcome back!

>  - so, I don't understand what the problem is. Conformance clause has 
> been an accepted and widely used term.  What is the objection to using 
> the 'clause'.   Is there really a confusion over the use of the term or 
> are we anticipating that people aren't able to figure out what is meant.

It started with the question, what's the difference between 10.1 (have a 
conformance clause) and 10.2 (separate section).  Confusing "clause" with 
"section" (e.g., in ISO document, "clause" is synonymous with top-level 
section).  The QA glossary compounds the confusion -- "a part of the 
specification".

As indicated, we will go forward with "clause", clarifying that it refers 
collectively to all of the conformance statements and policy, possibly 
scattered about the document.

-Lofton.


>Lynne
>
>At 05:32 PM 8/1/02, Lofton Henderson wrote:
>
>>At 03:45 PM 8/1/02 -0400, Sandra Martinez wrote:
>>
>>>In my opinion, I do not see any conflict in the use of the term "clause" 
>>>the glossary specifically define it as a "part" not a section of the 
>>>specification and the checkpoint reiterate that position . Ck. 10-2 does 
>>>not contradict the idea it only makes a recommendation. If the term 
>>>"clause" continues to be misleading, I recommend the term "Conformance 
>>>Statement(s)".
>>
>>Unless someone object or argues for an alternative, for the next SpecGL 
>>draft, I will leave it as "conformance clause", with clarifications.  But 
>>I think that the definition in the QA Glossary is faulty or at least 
>>misleading (no need to argue about which):
>>
>>"Part of a specification which defines the requirements that must be 
>>satisfied to claim conformance to part of the specification".
>>
>>"Part" is singular and suggests one piece, i.e., a section.  Replacing it 
>>with "a part or collection of parts" is much better, IMO.  See next 
>>(4-aug) draft when it is ready.
>>
>>-Lofton.
>>
Received on Friday, 2 August 2002 09:17:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:10 GMT