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

Re: SpecGL problems/issues for telcon 28 Oct

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 08:53:04 -0700
Message-Id: <>
To: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>, www-qa-wg@w3.org
Here are a few more comments on SpecGL issues and "@@@" flags...

At 11:18 AM 10/25/02 -0400, Lynne Rosenthal wrote:
>The following are a list of the problems/issues identified in the latest 
>version of SpecGL http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2002/10/qaframe-spec-20021025
>and marked by @@@.   I've indicated the items I think are the highest 
>priority.  Unless someone suggests indicates a preference/priority, my 
>intention is to address the ** in order
>SpecGL problems/issues
>** indicates priority.
>* indicates we can deal with this quickly
>7.2     reword CP or its TA

How about CP rewording:  "Define support requirements for deprecated 
features".  And leave the fulfillment criteria more or less as is.

>7.3     applicability of CP to class of product

(Note.  7.4, not 7.3).  Thoughts

1.) yes, it is okay (if the  assertion is true about "producers") -- its 
applicability ought to be clarified and qualified.

2.) is the assertion true?  seems like it.  But ... how about this 
scenario?  ZML 2.0 deprecates feature "Blah", and explains that producers 
can achieve the same effect by generating "Foo" and "Bar".  Doesn't this 
also tell ZML 2.0 consumers that they can handle ZML 1.0 content by mapping 
Blah to Foo+Bar?

>G9 rewritten, general consensus

I keep thinking that there is a nice way to combine CK9.1 and 9.2, without 
losing any requirements.  For example,

9.1:  "Define whether or not conformance is strict."
         (Subsumes the "if allowed" and "not allowed" parts of 9.1 and 9.2)
9.2:  "If extensions are allowed, completely define their scope and 

All for now,
Received on Monday, 28 October 2002 10:52:56 UTC

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