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

Re: SpecLite Outline

From: Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 11:47:38 +0100
To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Cc: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>, www-qa-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1079952458.28243.372.camel@stratustier>
Le lun 22/03/2004 ŗ 01:43, Lofton Henderson a ťcrit :
> Question.  Are we going to abandon SpecET as a formal, separate
> document?  Roll its good stuff into here (with maybe some external
> template(s))?

I think we should drop our GL/ET division, indeed. It makes it more
difficult to use and to develop our documents in the end.

> > A.1. Include a conformance section   [8.4]
> [...]
> Okay, here's were we have 4 forward references for CC content. 
> Whereas I think we need to express in the section, "the more
> applicable stuff you put in one place into the CC, the better it
> is."   (A good practice?).

Hmm... Not sure to see exactly what you mean here.

> > B.2 What needs to conform    [2.1]
> > @@Here are different ways to say basically the same thing.
> 
> Comment.  I'm not sure if all of our audience would agree with that
> last statement (about the next two).  E.g., think of the discussions
> we have had with OWL -- didn't they expect a lot of stuff to implement
> it, but they have no conformance requirements aimed at
> implementations?)

I agree that this is probably a point we'll need to flesh out in more
details ; FWIW, I think this relates somewhat to 
http://esw.w3.org/topic/MeaningVsBehavior

[Re OWL, it was in fact RDF ; the OWL folks did develop a conformance
model]

> > Good Practice: being consistent and using the same term when you
> > mean the same thing  don't be a thesaurus. [7,3]
> 
> Question.  Do we mean this to apply to conformance language, or all
> language?  I think we should focus on conformance language 

agreed.



> > Good Practice: Include the reason for the deprecation [4.4]
> 
> If we think SpecLite is too big, and if we feel the need to pare it
> down further, then these "why?" items might be candidates (the other
> example was above, under Extensibility).

Agreed (as said in my own comments)

> > E. End Game
> 
> How about "Quality Control".  That's really what we're talking about
> -- have some good quality control processes that you apply to the
> spec.

Sounds good, although maybe a bit less enjoyable ;)

Dom
-- 
Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/
W3C/ERCIM
mailto:dom@w3.org


Received on Monday, 22 March 2004 05:47:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:15 GMT