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

TOC checkpoints

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 10:59:52 -0600
Message-Id: <>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org

  Ref:  http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2002/10/qaframe-spec-20021025

A TOC entry is required for each of checkpoints 3.1, 4.1, 5.1, 7.5, 8.5, 
9.7, 10.10 (note numbering problem).

About 3.1, Dom asks:  "@@@ What about specs that don't have TOC? and to 
which spec (the profile itself, the standard profiled, the rules for 
profiles?) does that apply?"

Our goal is this:  it should be easy for the user to find all of the 
information necessary to understand the conformance policy and all of its 
details, regardless of spec partitioning.

I think that we intend this to be true in every "spec", even if the spec is 
partitioned and published in separate bits.  Starting in any bit, you 
should be able to quickly find everything you need to know about 
conformance, so that you could implement the described stuff in the (bit 
of) spec, or assess an implementation, or write a test suite.

If the target spec in question is part of a larger system -- i.e., there 
are other technologies and specifications that are needed in order to 
implement or assess or build TM -- then you still must be able to find 
everything easily, even if it is in other specs (which might all be 
partitioned bits of a bigger family of documents).

Does this sound right so far?

If so ... then we need checkpoint(s) that enforce it.  In other words, I 
think it implies that there *must* be a TOC (or some equivalent document 
navigation/discovery mechanism).  To answer Dom's questions, maybe we need 
to be clearer about our expectation -- whether a spec is a single isolated 
document, or a part of a bigger family of documents or partitioned system 
of specifications, you need to be able to easily find all key conformance 

Going further -- and this is probably beyond the scope of what we can do by 
6-nov -- I have been thinking whether we could unify all of these somehow, 
possibly in conjunction with some changes in GL10 and/or GL6.  More later.

Received on Friday, 25 October 2002 12:59:47 UTC

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