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

Re: [Lofton's] TOC drafting assignment.

From: lynne rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@Nist.gov>
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 13:55:11 -0500
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20021105134816.00b143e0@mailserver.nist.gov>
To: David Marston/Cambridge/IBM <david_marston@us.ibm.com>, www-qa-wg@w3.org

My caution for all checkpoints is that they be clearly and simply 
stated.  My concern is that we shouldn't try to handle everything for ever 
situation. Not only is this impossible, but our attempt decreases the 
readability and usability of the checkpoint.   Our goal is to help people 
do the right thing and get them thinking in the right direction.  Once they 
start thinking about doing a small bit, they will probably think about 
other things that are related and could also be done.  This does not 
preclude us from putting a more comprehensive example of fulfilling a 
checkpoint in the ET document.

Lynne


  12:26 PM 11/5/2002, David Marston/Cambridge/IBM wrote:





>I think I foresee a refactoring in the navigation checkpoints. Lofton
>suggested:
>
> >Checkpoint 13.4:  Provide a fast way to find conformance information
>
> >To fulfill this checkpoint, a specification MUST provide at least one
> >navigation mechanism that allows the reader to locate all
> >conformance-related information that is relevant to the specification.
> >The mechanism MUST minimally locate:  the conformance clause...
> >Rationale:...A table of contents entry is one way to accomplish this.
>
>Actually, I think the desirable relationship is that the checkpoint is
>fulfilled by having a TOC entry for just the conformance section, which
>contains the conformance clause (and thus the policy) and navigational
>pointers to all the other conformance info.
>
> >In addition to the minimal required set above, other conformance
> >related information such as the ICS, location of test suites, etc, may
> >be helpful to users and implementers.
>
>To which I would add: any such conformance-related information that is
>present is subject to the provisions of this checkpoint.
>.................David Marston
Received on Tuesday, 5 November 2002 14:01:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:11 GMT