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: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 07:22:34 -0500
Message-Id: <>
To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org


At 06:39 PM 12/22/2003, Lofton Henderson wrote:
>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").
Received on Tuesday, 23 December 2003 07:22:40 UTC

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