- From: <david_marston@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 16:04:37 -0400
- To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
I'll start by offering Choice 4. Checkpoint 5.4. Promote consistency across multiple discretionary items. Conformance requirements: the specification MUST indicate the rationale for discretionary items being separate rather than consolidated. This requirement is not applicable for specifications that do not have discretionary items, or have only one discretionary item. Rationale: the use cases begin the process of setting expectations of how implementations will be used. When further refined, the use cases set expectations for variation or flexibility of implementations. Any variability that is too detailed for the use cases is probably of low value to the user, but it hurts interoperability. (See [link to excess DoV paragraph].) When individual details are subject to discretion but can be summarized as a policy-level decision, the specification MUST present one named discretionary item for the policy OR present a justification for dividing the item into smaller items. When one item affects more than one feature, the specification of each such feature SHOULD refer to the discretionary item by name and link to the place where the item is explained generally. When a rationale exists for dividing a discretionary item that could be consolidated, the rationale MUST cite benefits to the user and/or an existing division over which the Working Group has no control. It may present other reasons as well. Also, the related items should be consistent in their range of options and their use of terminology. (Consistent terminology is required to satisfy Checkpoint 13.3[link].) Specifications SHOULD propagate rules for consistent terminology about discretionary items onto the implementations, especially when an implementation could offer choices to the user. Where an implementation may exercise allowed discretion by adapting to the environment in which it is run, specifications SHOULD encourage the implementation and any associated documentation to use the specification's terminology. ================================ If you followed Lynne's citation, you know that I supplemented this proposal with some suggestions that put other topics (that some people thought this CP was about) into other CPs. Yes, this choice has more of a focused impact than Choice 1. I see Choice 1 as essentially permissive because a spec might satisfy it by providing a rationale for the existence of a discretionary item rather than a rationale for why the particular item is separate. .................David Marston
Received on Thursday, 4 September 2003 16:05:51 UTC