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

New SpecGuide discussion draft

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2002 18:21:12 -0600
Message-Id: <>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org


Here [1] is a new discussion draft (Editor's draft) of Spec Guidelines, for 
Wednesday telecon.

I have tried to accommodate all of the discussion from the 6/27 
telecon.  But there are several points which haven't quite solidified 
yet.  You will find these marked with "@@", and I propose to start by going 
through and talk about some of them (not all -- a few are just action item 
markers).  Please take a minute and have a look at the "@@" markers.

I have incorporated Mark's research (see below -- original message didn't 
get into the archive) and my own remembrance about the meaning of CK3.3, 
"..profiles mandatory?".   In particular, I restored something like Lynne's 
original wording (recall that I had changed it towards "...mandatory 
conditions or constraints").

This still leaves a couple of issues around the central checkpoints of 
GL.3, GL.4, GL.7:

1.) 3.4:  What does "minimal requirements" mean in this context;

2.) 4.3:  having made sense of original wording of 3.3, is there a similar 
sense to the original 4.3, "...its use is mandatory", and should we revert 
to it.  From the 6/27 draft minutes, "Guideline 4.4 get's folded into 4.3. 
Mandatory module requirement"


[1] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2002/07/qaframe-spec-0708.html

At 11:33 PM 7/2/02 -0400, skall@nist.gov wrote:
> >
> > Do we have any clues yet, what was the intent behind this original
> > checkpoint 5.3?  I'm still trying to figure out what to do about it (or
>After leaving a message for Lynne and listening to her reply, it seems 
>that the
>question of mandatoriness for profiles came from CGM, where, apparently, 
>it was
>required that implementers use a specific profile (i.e, they did not 
>conform if
>they implemented the whole standard - they needed to implement a profile).  I
>believe that, sometimes, this makes sense.  There would have to be enough
>profiles defined where it would make sense to require that one of them get
>implemented.  I think it would also make sense to give the implementer the
>option of implementing a profile or not - it would depend on the
>circumstances.  Thus, I think the checkpoint is valid, with some 
>re-writing to
>clarify this intent.
Received on Monday, 8 July 2002 20:18:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:14:28 UTC