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: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 12:00:25 -0500
Message-Id: <02742C14-37F1-11D9-9DFD-0003934BEBF0@w3.org>
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
To: david_marston@us.ibm.com

Dave, :)

Le 16 nov. 2004, à 11:36, david_marston@us.ibm.com a écrit :
> The main question is about the aggregation of modules into levels. In 
> your diagram, Level 1 is defined to encompass Modules A and B. I would 
> think that it must also encompass the Core, but it's not drawn that 
> way. There are two possible solutions (in my view of the world):

> M. Define Level 1 as just the Core, Level 2 as Core plus A and B, 
> Level 3 as Core plus A-D.

> T. Define Level 1 as Core plus A and B, Level 2 as Core plus A-D.

> Either way, we want to show that the Core must be present in every 
> implementation. But I favor solution M because I think that Level 1 
> also defines what must be present in every implementation. If Level 1 
> is the minimum, why call out Modules A and B if they are required of 
> every implementation? Why not say that the Core is large enough to 
> include A and B if every implementation must have Core plus A and B?

ahahah :))) Remember my first graph? ;) It was what I have designed the 
first time and you said there was a need for a core module ;) not me. 
For me level 1 encompasses all the module that you need to implement 
it's a kind of defining the Basic Conformance. :)))

I would prefer to call out the module A and B because they can be 
functional division of the technology.

	Module Text
	Module Table
Part of Level 1 and Mandatory for conforming implementation
Though someone outside may need just one module for a precise task.
or for a developer it might make more sense to map a program on the 
functional division. 		

> Adding on profiles, I believe the arrows are implying that Profile X 
> and Profile Z include all of Level 1, since the arrows end at the 
> Level 1 box rather than at individual modules. Notice that Profile X 
> points also to the Level 2 box, making it indistinguishable from Level 
> 2.

	Yes the arrow to the Level 1 is not necessary.
		I will explain under the graph that Level 2 includes Level 1.
> I think it should point only at Module C instead. I think it's clear 
> that Profile Z is Core, Level 1, plus Module E.

	Do you think it's acceptable to implement half of a level?
	It would mean that Profile X is just Level 1 conforming application 
plus things Module C and an optional module E?

> Maybe this is too much for one diagram. Maybe there should be a 
> diagram for modules and profiles without levels, then one for modules 
> and levels without profiles.

Hmmm not sure. I would rather make an evolving diagram.

1. Modules + Levels
2. Diagram 1 + Profiles on top

Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager
*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Tuesday, 16 November 2004 17:00:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:14:34 UTC