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

SpecGL reword of CP3.1 example

From: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 12:21:35 -0500
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20031224121544.01e0b488@mailserver.nist.gov>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org

There was some confusion regarding the clarity of the example in CP 3.1
(see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003Dec/0054.html and 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003Dec/0052.html)

+++++++++++++++++
CURRENT TEXT
For example, content can be required to conform to one of the profiles, or 
it may be conformant to the specification independently of conformance to 
one of the profiles. The questions arises also for a producer (of content): 
is it conforming if it generates content that is otherwise valid but does 
not conform to a profile?

An example of additional conditions on profiles would be to require that 
only one profile can be implemented at a time.
+++++++++++
SUGGESTED REWRITE
Examples of conditions on content include: requiring content to conform to 
a specific profile, requiring content to conform to only one profile, or 
not requiring conformance to any profile, i.e., content would conform to 
the specification independent of conformance to one or more of the profiles.

An example of a condition on producers is to require a producer (of 
content) to generate content that conforms to a defined profile as opposed 
to no condition, i.e., allowing a producer to generate any valid content.

An example of a condition imposed on the use of a collection of profiles is 
to constrict their usage to one profile at a time (i.e., have mutually 
exclusive profiles).
+++++++++++++++

Comments?  Is this better or worse?  Should these examples be moved to ET 
documents?

--happy holidays
Lynne
Received on Wednesday, 24 December 2003 12:23:09 GMT

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