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

Re: Mandatory modules - treatment in SpecGL

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 18:22:22 -0500
Message-Id: <09753310-3694-11D9-AB55-000A95718F82@w3.org>
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
To: david_marston@us.ibm.com
Hi David,

I'm in the process of recreating the figure for organization of 
Conformance Models
I think I start to understand your point of view. I can draw multiple 
diagram I'm using a tool which makes it easier. :)

For now I have just redraw a graph which is very similar to the first 
one but I will improve it.

Le 01 oct. 2004, à 13:52, david_marston@us.ibm.com a écrit :
> I don't like that approach because the figure is already weak on the
> topic of levels, and the above change makes it weaker. If there are
> levels, Level 1 is the mandatory subdivision as far as the dimension
> of levels is concerned. Figure 1 says that there can be products that
> conform but don't meet all the Level 1 requirements. Indeed, Profile
> Z can be satisfied without meeting the Level 1 requirements. My fix,
> as indicated in [3], is to have a separate stack figure for levels.
> [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2004Aug/0101.html

And I think that would be easier to look at this with specific examples.

		   Modules   Profiles  Levels
CSS 3        X          X
SMIL         X
XHTML Mod    X
SVG                     X
WCAG                             X

I have tried to draw things to explain.

Look at the new graphic, does it cover a bit more your case?

Profile X =  Core
			+ Level 1 (Mod A + Mod B)
			+ Level 2 (Mod C + Mod D)
Profile Z =  Core
			+ Level 1 (Mod A + Mod B)
			+ Mod E (optional with regards to levels)

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

(image/png attachment: SpecGL-ModProfileLevel.png)

Received on Monday, 15 November 2004 00:58:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:14:33 UTC