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

Open issues on SpecGL (was: WG SpecGL updated)

From: Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Date: 18 Oct 2002 16:22:52 +0200
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1034950973.29321.79.camel@stratustier>
Le ven 18/10/2002 ŗ 14:45, Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux a ťcrit :
> I'll send later the specific issues I'd like to get feedback on during
> Monday teleconf.

Here is the list, sorted in order of priority:
- Issue 93 is still open: why register extensions?

- on CP 10.2 "Make normative reference to specifications on which the
current specification depends"
What do we mean by dependence? Isn't normative reference the only way to
set up a dependence any way?
http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2002/10/qaframe-spec.html#id2609927

- on CP 13.3 "Follow Web Accessibility Initiative and
Internationalization Guidelines."
Do we really want to get on the business to make other GL apply? I think
we're going ahead lots of troubles if we go that way...
http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2002/10/qaframe-spec.html#Ck-wai-i18n

- on CP 12.1 "If an ICS is included as part of the specification,
indicate whether it is a normative or informative part of the
specification."
How an ICS can be normative? To what class of product would it apply?
http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2002/10/qaframe-spec.html#Ck-include-ICS

- on CP 14.3 and 14.4 about "Intended behaviors"
Do we have a definition of intended behavior? How is it different from
another test assertion?
http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2002/10/qaframe-spec.html#Ck-markup-behavior

- on CP 12.2  "Require the ICS be completed as part of the conformance
claim. "
On whom/what would such a requirement be set? What conformance would it
break not to complete the ICS?
http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2002/10/qaframe-spec.html#Ck-require-ICS

- on CP 9.1 "Indicate if extensions are disallowed"
Does it really make sense to disallow extensions? Either there is an
extension mechanism, or there is not. If there is not, how would one
introduce an extension without breaking conformance already?
http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2002/10/qaframe-spec.html#Ck-extensions-disallowed

- On CP 9.3 "# Extensions shall not re-define semantics for existing
functions."
This is probably only an example of what can be defined; should this
"can" sentence be moved to ET?
http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2002/10/qaframe-spec.html#Ck-extensions-not-negate

- On CP 9.4 " If extensions are allowed, use a standard mechanism to
define the extension."
I don't think we should get in as much details... Let the WG do their
jobs.
http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2002/10/qaframe-spec.html#Ck-ext-standard-mechanism

That's probably already more than we can take on. Please let me know if
you want to change the orders of issue processing.

Dom
-- 
Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/
W3C/INRIA
mailto:dom@w3.org

Received on Friday, 18 October 2002 10:22:53 GMT

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