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

Re: TOC checkpoints

From: David Marston/Cambridge/IBM <david_marston@us.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 13:51:30 -0400
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFD9237533.F87D0959-ON85256C5D.005F92F9@lotus.com>






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

Numbering note: GL 6 is one of the DoV, but its TOC requirement is
expressed in GL 10.

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

...or navigation mechanism, as LH later mentions...

LH>I have been thinking whether we could unify all of these somehow...

That seems cleaner, but it revives the "negative mention" issue. The
problem can be solved, but I gather that the sentiment is to be less
strident about the requirement.

Here's a restatement of what I, as a Quality Engineer, would want:
Given a spec document, I should be able to
(1) identify and retrieve all the other normative documents that
    have bearing on this spec, then
(2) identify a TOC or other navigation mechanism that allows me to
    locate either
(3A) the conformance section [Ck 10.9 satisfied] or at least
(3B) the conformance clause [Ck 10.8 satisfied],
and from that conformance material
(4) either read or navigate to all the material about conformance
    variability. For *each* of the 8 DoV, I should be able to
    determine unambiguously either
(5A) that the dimension allows no variability, or
(5B) the extent of the allowed variability.

Of course, (5A) could be satisfied unambiguously without a negative
statement if the conformance clause/section has a statement of the
form: "The only ways in which implementations are allowed to vary
from one another are..." and then goes on to mention those DoV that
are used.

Is "unambiguous" more precise than "clear"? If not, we need specs on
the comprehension capabilities of the "intended readers" of W3C
Technical Reports.
.................David Marston
Received on Friday, 25 October 2002 13:52:39 GMT

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