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

Re: A few comments on SpecGL -- GL.8

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 18:29:08 -0600
Message-Id: <>
To: David Marston/Cambridge/IBM <david_marston@us.ibm.com>, www-qa-wg@w3.org


This is one of a few replies -- I'm breaking your comments into several pieces.

At 05:27 PM 7/30/02 -0400, David Marston/Cambridge/IBM wrote:
>GL 8: A new checkpoint to comment on interop? I'm opposed right now,
>because I think the questionnaire or pro forma addresses this well

GL.8 (0729) says, at the end of the GL verbiage:  "The ICS is also helpful 
in describing the expected interoperabliity to be achieved with other 
implementations or applications of the specifications."  The ICS doesn't 
actually describe it (I14Y, that is), or require that it be 
described.  More accurate would be, "The ICS also provides basic 
information that can be used to assess and deduce the interoperability 
potential of two or more products."

"Implementation dependent" in a specification is too often a last resort to 
maintain WG publication schedule when consensus can't be reached -- I've 
been there, done that!  I can't recommend the practice -- in my experience, 
it has been one of greatest causes of interoperability wrecks.  Though I'd 
like to, we can't ban it with a priority 1 checkpoint.  But we can force 
specifications to explain and justify it.  That in itself can be a 
deterrent, IMO.

Other opinions?

Received on Wednesday, 31 July 2002 20:26:12 UTC

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