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

SpecGL topics for 18 Dec Telecon

From: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 13:54:19 -0500
Message-Id: <>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org


The following is the order of topics/items that will be discussed on 18 Dec 
SpecGL special telecon.  I've modified the list we used previously [3] and 
merged in some of the outstanding Issues [2].  We are working with the 8 
Nov version of SpecGL [1]. If you have a preference to the proposed 
ordering of topics, please let me know.


Formal Description and Examples
1.4  Provide an example for each formal description
What is a formal description? Definition is unclear.
Does SpecGL provide this?
Suggest removing 1.4 and splitting 1.3 into 2 CPS

Issue 106: Should the extensions CPs be repackaged?
9.1 Indicate if extensions are disallowed
9.2 Indicate if extensions are allowed
Is there a way to combine these?
Proposal: For CP, Lofton proposal [find email]
For SpecGL, need to add explicit words to address the itemized list.  Not 
have use cases or project requirements, so can’t do last MUST. Editor action

Navigation requirements
Issue 103: What are the fulfillment criteria for navigation requirements of 
CP 13.4
CP 13.4 Provide a fast way to find conformance information (David and 
Sandra reviews)
Issues of navigation and discovery were under-represented in the 
checkpoints.  For example, discretionary items are only detectable by a 
thorough reading of the entire document.

Deprecation Examples
Issue 104: Should CP 7.4 be rewritten to cover both producers and consumers?
Does this CP apply to just producers and not consumers (the wording implies 

Consistent terminology
13. 3 Use consistent terminology
Can this be verified?  What exactly is required? Should this CP be removed 
and left to Manual of Style and Susan L to worry about?

Universal requirements
3.1 Specify any universal requirements for minimum functionality
Unclear what is meant by this requirements.  For the SpecGL, is Level A 
considered the minimum functionality?  Does a specification (in our case 
SpecGL) need to explicitly say ‘Level A is the minimal requirement for all 

Strict conformance
3.2 Identify strict conformance requirements
SpecGL doesn’t explicitly specify this, although it is implied that SpecGL 
doesn’t do strict conformance (see conformance claim wording section 3.2, “ 
…meets at least all degree X conformance requirements’.

[1]  http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/
[2] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/qawg-issues-html
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2002Nov/0109.html 
(previous list of topics)
Received on Tuesday, 17 December 2002 13:55:47 UTC

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