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

Re: SpecGL editorial comments - CP2.1

From: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 10:28:37 -0500
Message-Id: <>
To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>, Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org

>> > 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.
>Where I'm getting confused is ... "your CoP matches more than one term" 
>versus "a product represents more than one CoP.
>A *product* could be a producer and it could be a consumer (e.g., it could 
>be capable of generating SVG, and it could be capable of reading/viewing 
>SVG).  This product should be subject to the conformance requirements for 
>a viewer (CoP), and it should be subject to the conformance requirements 
>for a generator (another CoP).  This product does not necessarily imply a 
>third, producer+consumer CoP.

I see the confusion, the wording of the Discussion is clear.  A given CoP 
can't match more than one term - what can match is a specific product, that 
is a specific product can fall into multiple CoPs.  Which rewording do you 
like better?
1) If the specification addresses more than one CoP, list all that apply.
2) It is not unusual for a specific product to match more than one term in 
the list.

Received on Monday, 22 December 2003 10:28:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:14:31 UTC