W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > August 2004

Conformance to SpecGL

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 18:37:00 -0400
Message-Id: <F6023F09-EBE6-11D8-9188-000A95718F82@w3.org>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
Hi QA WG,

We need to define the conformance section of SpecGL itself,


In 
http://www.w3.org/QA/Group/2004/07/WD-qaframe-spec/#conformance-clause
"""
A.1. A conformance clause is essential
With a good conformance clause, a specification comes close to full 
conformance to this Specification Guidelines.
"""

This means that, SpecGL has a strict conformance clause imposing things 
on the way you can apply or comply to these guidelines. I'm not sure 
this sentence will have the be kept, it depends on the model we will 
choose.


* I have also noticed that we may need markers on each Good Practice 
and Principle to be able to identify them easily, in reliable way, and 
to help the usability of the document. (btw, I have to fix something 
which is not completely correct for the semantics of the document. 
GP/Principle prose should be in a heading, I think. I will see how I 
can deal with that.)

It could be something ala

=====================
+ A. Specifying Conformance
	- A.1. A conformance clause is essential
		A1-P1  Principle: Include a conformance clause.
		A1-GP1 Good Practice: Define the specification
                conformance model in the conformance clause
		A1-GP2 Good Practice: Specify in the conformance
                clause how to distinguish normative from
                informative content.
	- A.2 Specify how to make conformance claims
		A2-GP1 Good Practice: Provide the wording for
                conformance claims.
		A2-GP2 Good Practice: Provide an Implementation
                Conformance Statement (ICS) proforma.
		A2-GP3 Good Practice: Require an Implementation
                Conformance Statement (ICS) as part of
                valid conformance claims.
=====================

As I said in a previous email, Techniques are a good set of test cases. 
Though we can't claim that they are the unique way to achieve the 
conformance to SpecGL. I would say that GP and Principles are Test 
Assertions and techniques are derived test cases, which means that 
people can come with more or different test cases as long as it 
fulfills the “requirements” of SpecGL.

Do we have minimal requirements for a specification, that we will say:
	This has to be!!! (like conformance section ;) )
It would be simpler if we say:
	Principles are mandatory and Good Practices optional, if you think 
it's possible, I'll go for it.

This is a quick start to modify, erase, improve, etc.

Conformance to this document

There is no such thing as being conformant to Specification Guidelines. 
Though the document is organized as a set of principles and good 
practices. This set defines test assertions for this document and 
techniques are possible test cases for the implementation of these test 
assertions.

[@@something about "could be as a conformance requirement" prose 
here?@@]




-- 
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager
*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***

Received on Wednesday, 11 August 2004 22:37:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:17 GMT