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

[SpecGL] making conformance simple

From: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 07:43:10 -0400
Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.2.20040819070650.01ca64f8@wsxg03.nist.gov>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org

As Karl reminded us, we have 2 Principles that are dependent on a Good 
Practice.  This complicates how we describe conformance to SpecGL.  Since 
this is SpecLite, it would be great to have a simple, straightforward 
conformance statement - i.e., To conform, implement all the Principles.

Thinking about this, I propose that we modify the 2 conditional Principles 
so that regardless of whether you implement the GP, you would implement the 
Principle.  The way to do this is to include in the Principle itself, the 
alternative of not doing the Principle - e.g., skip this principle if you 
don't subdivide.   I can think of 2 ways to accomplish this (1) As done in 
UAAG, have a normative exclusion statement or (2) indicate applicability in 
the phrasing of the principle.

For example:
Current Principle:  Indicate which subdivisions are mandatory for conformance

Proposal:
a) If the technology is subdivided, then indicate which subdivisions are 
mandatory for conformance, else skip this Principle.

b) Indicate which subdivisions are mandatory for conformance.
Normative exclusion:  this Principle is only applicable if the technology 
is subdivided.
(the normative exclusion would be in the same 'box' as the Principle)

I'm going to assume that we do one of these suggestions or something 
similar - that way conformance to SpecGL can be very simple.

--lynne
Received on Thursday, 19 August 2004 11:43:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:18 GMT