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

Re: [www-qa-wg] <none>

From: Mark Skall <mark.skall@nist.gov>
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 10:50:56 -0500
Message-Id: <>
To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>, www-qa-wg@w3.org

At 08:24 AM 12/2/2002 -0700, Lofton Henderson wrote:

>At 09:37 AM 12/2/2002 -0500, Mark Skall wrote:
>>Some in-line responses to these points:
>>At 09:17 PM 12/1/2002 -0700, Lofton Henderson wrote:
>>>>For SpecGL, specifically state in the Scope, the class of product that this
>>>>document targets is xxxx.
>>>I agree that we should be more careful to define class of product (CoP) 
>>>and category of SpecGL, in SpecGL.  I disagree with Mark's assertion 
>>>that we necessarily need to add "specification" to the enumerated 
>>>list(s).  It depends on how widely useful a "specification" CoP is.  Is 
>>>SpecGL likely to be the only (Rec, or Note, or whatever) that addresses 
>>>the "specification" CoP?  If so, then we should not add it to the 
>>>enumerated list.  We should use the "...else define your CoP" variation 
>>>of the requirement.
>>Your assertion that we shouldn't include specifications as a class of 
>>product argues that we shouldn't expect SpecGL to conform to itself.  If 
>>there is even one use of this class, it should be included. If we don't 
>>treat conforming specs as a class equal to the others, why should we 
>>expect specs to conform?
>Not true (that a class-of-one must be included in the enumerated list). 
>Checkpoint 2.1 says:
>"To fulfill this checkpoint, a specification:
>     * MUST list the classes of product it addresses
>     * SHOULD use the above enumerated classes names when they match those 
> of the specification
>     * MUST define and describe any product class that does not match the 
> enumerated set"
>Maybe you are misinterpreting what I said (or vice versa).  You said that 
>we needed to add "specifications" to the CoP enumeration list in the 
>verbiage of GL2.  CP2.1 says if your CoP isn't in the enumerated list, 
>then you must define and describe your CoP (3rd bullet).
>I am recommending that we do the 3rd bullet approach (define and describe 
>SpecGL's CoP in SpecGL's Introduction), rather than add "specifications" 
>to the enumerated CoP list of the verbiage of GL2.  Reason.  If SpecGL is 
>the only W3C Recommendation that will use the "specifications" CoP (is 
>it?  I don't know), then why bother to clutter up the enumerated 
>list?  That is why we added the 3rd bullet -- we only want the list to 
>cover generally used CoPs, not every unique CoP that we can think of.

My only point is that we've included all classes of products that we were 
aware of.  I know we say the list isn't exhaustive.  However, I think it 
would give everyone the wrong impression if we excluded specs, since we'd 
like very much to assert that we conform.  This is not an issue of 
conformance, but one of perception.
Mark Skall
Chief, Software Diagnostics and Conformance Testing Division
Information Technology Laboratory
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8970
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8970

Voice: 301-975-3262
Fax:   301-590-9174
Email: skall@nist.gov
Received on Monday, 2 December 2002 10:58:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:14:29 UTC