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

SpecGL LC81: rewrite of CP6.5 (old 9.6)

From: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2003 12:45:34 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030904124016.02d19010@mailserver.nist.gov>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org

The following is a summary of LC 81 -- which refers to the current CP 6.5 
(old 9.6)

LC 81: comment about "9.6 Require that implementations ... alternatives to 
extensions"
Resolution: CP9.6 will be kept, but the requirements on target 
specifications will be revised.  CP9.6 will require that target 
specifications explicitly define a policy about implementation requirements 
for mitigation of the interoperability impacts of extensions. Such policy 
could, to cite three examples, include a requirement that implementations 
have a no-extensions mode; or could include a requirement that 
implementations include equivalent alternative (standard) content with any 
extensions; or could explicitly state that there are in fact no 
implementation requirements for mitigation of interoperability impacts of 
extensions. [PC volunteered to draft text.]


I propose the following revised CP:

CP6.5 Mitigate the impact of extensions on interoperability

ConfReq: The specification MUST define a policy about implementation 
requirements for mitigation of the interoperability impacts of 
extensions.  This checkpoint is not applicable if extensions are not 
allowed.  This checkpoint is only applicable to specifications that 
identify producer of content as one of its classes of products.

Rationale:  Extensions can have a negative affect on implementation 
interoperability.  This checkpoint can be used to impose conformance 
requirements on producer implementations to minimize the consequences of 
the extension.  For example, the specification could include a requirement 
that implementations have a no-extensions mode; or could include a 
requirement that implementations include equivalent alternative (standard) 
content with any extensions; or could explicitly state that there are in 
fact no implementation requirements for mitigation of interoperability 
impacts of extensions.


Comments, please?
Lynne
Received on Thursday, 4 September 2003 12:51:20 GMT

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