Re: profiles/modules/levels -- 1 of 2

• From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
• Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 14:59:56 -0600
• To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
• Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030422145821.048faa00@terminal.rockynet.com>

Despite goal to be completely clear, maybe I wasn't here...

At 01:07 PM 4/22/03 -0600, Lofton Henderson wrote:
>[...]
>[Just to beat the CGM to death, one could also consider using 4 modules to 
>define CGM:1999 -- the 1987 module; the 1989 module, defined as the l2-l1 
>addendum; the 1991 module, defined as the l3-l2 addendum; the 1994 module, 
>defined as the l4-l3 addendum.  However, these modules lack the 
>"functional coherence" criterion that appears in the definition of modules 
>(see my next message).  Each of the 4 "modules" in fact spans a wide 
>breadth of functionality, targeted at diverse needs and purposes.]

...in other words, I think this is a misuse of "modules".

-Lofton.

Received on Tuesday, 22 April 2003 16:57:57 UTC