W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > April 2003

Re: profiles, modules, levels [30, 41, 49, 50, 51, 97, 98]

From: Mark Skall <mark.skall@nist.gov>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 09:37:31 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030414093155.01e5e478@mailserver.nist.gov>
To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>, www-qa-wg@w3.org

I think that combining the GLs for profiles, modules and levels would be a 
huge mistake.  They were separated, as you said, to make it clearer.

Profiles, modules and levels are separate, but related concepts.  What 
we're missing is a better explanation for when to use each one.  In fact, 
we don't conform to SpecGL (Guideline 8.1) because we don't include a 
rationale for these items, especially modules.  We should concentrate on 
providing clear rationales, not combining them and making the water much 
more murky.

Mark




At 06:07 PM 4/12/2003 -0600, Lofton Henderson wrote:

>The "Subject" of this message is on Monday's agenda.
>
>Issue 30 suggests combining the GLs for profiles, modules, levels 
>(4,5,6).  This is also suggested in the "major restructure" issues of LH 
>(74.3) and PC  (75.3).
>
>For reference, GL4,5,6 were combined in the FPWD of Spec Guidelines:
>
>http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-qaframe-spec-20020515/#b2ab3d187
>
>One of the first things we did after FPWD (May-June -- I don't have the 
>minutes links but you can look 'em up) was to separate GLs for profiles, 
>modules, levels, because it was a mess.
>
>I have some sympathy with the idea that they could be combined.  But I 
>don't think it would be useful for us, on Monday, to simply endorse the 
>concept "combine them", without some clear idea of *how* to combine them.
>
>I would suggest that we should have a specific proposal before we work on 
>issue 30 (and 74.3, 75.3).  Either:
>
>1.) Best:  proposed wording of the single GL, and listing of its proposed 
>CPs (also nice -- mapping from old GL4-6 and its CPs to the CPs of the new GL)
>
>2.) Acceptable:  a clear description of the principles governing the 
>merger, and where the test requirements of the CPs of the old GL4-6 are 
>reflected in the new GL.  (This would basically provide a roadmap to draft #1).
>
>-Lofton.
>

****************************************************************
Mark Skall
Chief, Software Diagnostics and Conformance Testing Division
Information Technology Laboratory
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8970
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8970

Voice: 301-975-3262
Fax:   301-590-9174
Email: skall@nist.gov
****************************************************************
Received on Monday, 14 April 2003 09:37:59 GMT

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