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

Re: CR issues 27-31 (Bjoern's)

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Sun, 09 May 2004 11:14:53 -0600
Message-Id: <>
To: Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org

At 03:37 PM 4/28/2004 +0200, Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux wrote:
>Hello QA WG,
>We're long overdue dealing with comments that BjŲrn HŲrmann sent us in
>September, that we have integrated as issues 27 through 31 in our CR
>issues list:
>They all concern SpecGl ; I believe issues 27 and 28 are moot, due to
>the large change of formatting that we envision for SpecGL.
>Issue 30 is likely to be solved once the questions regarding the
>glossary are closed ; I still think it should remain open as a check
>item for the next publication of the new SpecGL.
>Issue 31 is editorial ; I think we need to find a better way to ensure
>that all the terms we use in Principles and Good Practices are clearly
>documented, since they are the equivalent of our old Conformance
>requirements ; so this should also stay open as a checkpoint before
>publishing SpecGL.
>Issue 29 is the most substantial:
>"all W3C specifications defining a notion of instance data should be
>explicitly required to identify all programmatically reportable errors,
>make reporting these a requirement for a specific class of product,
>define how to identify such software and define how to identify
>instances which do not have reportable errors."
>Although it looks unlikely to me that we're going into that level of
>specificity in our new guidelines, I think it raises an important
>question about error handling in specifications ; the current TR version
>of SpecGL doesn't have the word "error" at all in its content, and I
>agree with BjŲrn that this topic is important enough that it should be
>addressed in the documents ; I had started to noodle on this a while
>back in the Wiki:

Then will this be our "Resolution" and closure to Bjoern?  ("Agree this is 
an important topic.  We' started discussion including Wiki.  Will put 
something in future documents")

>It's also worth noting that WebArch has also some text related to error
>handling, although it's more oriented toward user agents than technology
>This also relates to extensibility in some way ; I don't think we're
>going to close this issue before the next publication of SpecGL, but I
>definitely think it's worth having something in SpecGL about this ; I
>would be interested to hear other people opinions on this topic,
>especially what are the different error handling mechanisms used across
>specifications they know. I would add the summary of such a discussion
>in the Wiki.

I'll send a contribution about SVG on the one hand, and WebCGM/CGM on the 
other -- two Web vector graphics standards with different target 
application sectors and two different approaches to error handling.

Received on Sunday, 9 May 2004 13:14:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:14:32 UTC