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

Re: SpecGL editorial comments

From: Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 13:00:26 +0100
To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Cc: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>, www-qa-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1071835226.2077.259.camel@stratustier>
Le mer 17/12/2003 ŗ 18:51, Lofton Henderson a ťcrit :
> Any case, here is a collection of (I think) editorial comments, that you 
> can file away for the next post-CR version.

Great work, thanks!

>   If you think any of these are 
> not editorial, please feel free to kick them back and call 'em "Issues".

I have incorporated most of your suggestions in a new Editors draft of
SpecGL; please check that the changes fits your requests in:
http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2003/12/qaframe-spec-uun

See below for the comments that I have not (yet) integrated or where I
need more details.

> CP2.1:  "If your class of product matches one or more terms in the 
> list..."  Can any given CoP match more than one term, as this implies?  (I 
> dunno' ... this is just a question that occurred to me when I read this.)

Well, I guess it would be easy to create requirements for a
consumer/producer type of products.

> CP3.1, Examples:  I cannot figure out what is meant by "...only one profile 
> can be implemented at a time."

Well, you could imagine that it would be forbidden to implement both a
tiny and a mobile profile in an SVG implementation (why would you do
that, I don't know, but maybe that helps understanding the meaning :)

> CP3.3, ConfReqs:  The not-applicable exemption is missing (if profiles are 
> not used).

Hmm... Since the ConfReq starts with "If derived profiles are used", I
don't think it's useful to have more than that for exemption.

> All CP:  Editors should read each Rationale.  In a number of CPs, some 
> additional sentence(s) of "Rationale" should really be "Discussion" or 
> "Examples".

I have not done that yet.

> GL5:  "implementation dependent values (or features)" -- definition is 
> garbled.

Can you clarify what you mean by that?

> CP5.3, statement & ConfReqs:  There are 3 occurrences of "items".  Isn't 
> this CP specifically about "discretionary choices", which is one of the 
> three types of "discretionary items"?   If "yes", then the 3 occurrences of 
> "items" are incorrect -- change to "choices".  (If "no", then this becomes 
> a substantive issue, not editorial -- this CP used to be about 
> discretionary choices and seems to have mutated).

It was a decision taken by the WG, I believe, when we adopted
DavidM/Lynne's proposal of rewrite of this CP.

> CP9.2, Discussion:  it doesn't relate very well to the subject of the CP or 
> to the ConfReqs.  If there *is* a connection, there should be a little more 
> verbiage to expose the connection.

Agreed; could you propose some verbiage to make this connection?

> CP9.3, Discussion:  what does "relevant assuring parties" mean?

e.g. a certification authority?

> all CPs:  each CP in CR version of SpecGL points to a SpecET section that 
> is paired with (points back to) the preceding *WD* SpecGL version.

I don't think there is much we can do about that now.

> Sec 4.5:  notice the nasty formatting glitch of the blockquote in the 
> Conformance Claim example (unless your browser window happens to be just 
> the right width).

I don't see any formatting glitch; could you give more details?
(browser, possibly a screenshot, etc.)

Dom
-- 
Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/
W3C/ERCIM
mailto:dom@w3.org


Received on Friday, 19 December 2003 07:00:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:15 GMT