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

Re: SpecGL editorial comments - CP2.1

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 16:39:15 -0700
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20031222163430.03a0dec0@localhost>
To: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org

At 10:28 AM 12/22/03 -0500, Lynne Rosenthal wrote:


>>> > 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.

Actually, I think it might confuse unnecessarily to mention products (by 
which I mean instances of products) here, since all else is discussion of 
*class of* product.

The issue would go away by making this change in "Discussion":  change "If 
your class of product matches one or more terms in the list,..." to 
something like, "If your class of product corresponds to one in the 
list,..."   (I.e., simply lose the concept of "or more").

-Lofton.
Received on Monday, 22 December 2003 18:40:22 GMT

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