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

Re: [draft] Comments from the QA WG on WebArch 2nd LC (extensibility)

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 08:48:06 -0600
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20040914175322.01e05680@localhost>
To: Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org

At 06:54 PM 9/13/2004 +0200, Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux wrote:
>[...]
>* section 4.3.2 reads "Experience suggests that the long term benefits
>of extensibility generally outweigh the costs"; since several QA WG
>participants have had a contrary experiences, the QA WG would be
>interested to know about specific examples of this experience.

I would phrase our comment a little differently.  Their statement implies a 
cost-benefit judgement, and the "generally outweighs" seems to imply that 
the cost-benefit judgement applies across the whole spectrum of (W3C) 
standards.

So what I would like to see is the cost-benefit data from which their 
conclusion is drawn.  When we say, "...specific examples of this 
experience", that could be read (by them) as asking for specific 
affirmative examples that support their statement.  Whereas I'd like to 
know how they arrive at the general conclusion, which implies looking at a 
lot of data/cases and a lot of weighing of positive and negative experience.

How about, "...the QA WG would be interested to know about the data (cases 
and examples) and method by which this conclusion was reached."

>The QA WG would rather see this either removed, or softened (ŗ la "the
>long term benefits of a well-designed extensibility mechansim..."), but
>at the very least explained.

-Lofton.
Received on Wednesday, 15 September 2004 14:47:58 GMT

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