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

GL6 "Conformance Policy (was: Re: SpecGL problems/issues for telcon 28 Oct)

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 11:33:13 -0600
Message-Id: <>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
At 11:18 AM 10/25/02 -0400, Lynne Rosenthal wrote:
>**6.2  rationale for CP on strict conformance
>**6.3  rationale

These specific questions lead to a more general one that I have been pondering.

I have always had a bit of a problem with this Guideline, because I don't 
really understand the point of it.  Specifically, it seems to me that GL2, 
3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, [, 10?] *collectively* specify [and document] the 
conformance policy.  I.e., if you do everything in all of those GL/CK, then 
what more is left to specify about conformance policy?

The verbiage of GL6 doesn't read too badly -- it leads me to believe that 
this is sort of an "umbrella" guideline over the other more specific 
ones.  I.e., it leads me to expect checkpoints that require putting all of 
the bits together coherently in an overview policy description -- i.e., the 
"conformance landscape from 10,000 feet".

However when I look at the checkpoints, they don't seem to add up to that 
expectation (and it is not clear that they all even belong):

6.1: Specify any universal requirements for minimum functionality
6.2: Identify strict conformance requirements
6.3: Distinguish requirements from product-specific extra features
6.4: If special conformance terms are used, include a definition in the 

[Aside about 6.1:  what are "universal requirements for minimum 
functionality"?  Do we really mean to say, universal conformance 
requirements that apply across all products, and "minimum functionality" 
might be one example of such a requirement? ]

 From the expectation raised in the GL verbiage, I would expect to see 
something like:  "in one place, in a single coherent discussion, describe 
the ways in which conforming implementations may vary (i.e., which DoV are 
used).  [Note.  If they may vary in a way that is not one of our DoV, is 
there any place where we require that such a private dimension be documented?]

Any other thoughts about this?

Received on Friday, 25 October 2002 13:33:08 UTC

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