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

[ISSUE]†Part of a technology - Spec GL 2004-08-30

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 08:09:47 +0900
Message-Id: <2DBD807C-01EC-11D9-BBA0-000A95718F82@w3.org>
To: 'www-qa-wg@w3.org' <www-qa-wg@w3.org>
Still during my review of Mobile SVG Profile against QA Framework: 
Specification Guidelines, W3C Working Draft 30 August 2004
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-qaframe-spec-20040830/

I-2004-09-09-02:
	Evaluating a part of a technology.

Mobile SVG Profile is a profile which is limiting the use of SVG for 
the benefits of Mobile devices. At first sight it's a bit strange to 
use QA Framework: Specification Guidelines to review a portion, a part 
of a technology. I have been able to do it because I know well the QA 
Framework and its implication on the design of a technology.

Now imagine you are not part of the QA WG, and you are part of the SVG 
WG. You have an action item to make SVG Mobile Profile compliant to 
Spec GL. The first reaction of many persons in WG will say something on 
the line: "It doesn't make sense". I understand them it's a bit tricky. 
In Spec GL, we are mentioning the fact of dividing a spec, to think 
about the conformance model after identifying dimension of variability. 
But in this case, we are the micro-level of one of the dimension of 
variability.

So if we don't want to have the Specification GL rejected on this 
basis. We have to be careful to include "Use cases" on the line of:
	Story: You are reviewing a profile. This is what you should do.... 
blablabla
	Story: You are reviewing a module. This is what you should do.... 
blablabla
	...

So when someone is reviewing a particular kind of document, he/she will 
not give up right away. It will also help to define the dependencies in 
review, as in "You are reviewing a profile, you should check if the 
core technology has been reviewed for this and that."



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

Received on Wednesday, 8 September 2004 23:09:49 GMT

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