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

Re: SpecGL Use Cases

From: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 08:30:13 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030621082640.00ac28a0@mailserver.nist.gov>
To: david_marston@us.ibm.com, www-qa-wg@w3.org

We did consider this use case, but didn't write it up.  The Framework:Intro 
mentions it with respect to a new version of a specification, and implied 
that you don't need to use SpecGL (in the large sense).

It would be great it you want to write this use case up, consistent with 
the current style we are using.

lynne

At 02:21 PM 6/20/2003, david_marston@us.ibm.com wrote:

>Just a quick note here that there could be another use case related to
>errata. The WG could decide that they had received notice of a spec
>problem that warranted an erratum. The spec problem might be a matter of
>under-specification or of conflicting verbiage.
>
>In formulating the erratum, the WG should consider all DoV that are used
>in the base document. The erratum may specify different behaviors for
>different implementer options granted by DoV, may create new deprecated
>or discretionary items, and may apply more constraints to the DoV. The
>erratum may spawn new Test assertions.
>
>The SpecGL would remind the editors to check all the guidelines, helping
>to ensure that the errata actually increase accuracy of reader/implementer
>understanding of the material.
>.................David Marston
>
>(I may have more detailed comments later.)
Received on Saturday, 21 June 2003 08:34:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:14 GMT