W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > April 2005

Re: SpecGL ICS for SpecGL

From: Dimitris Dimitriadis <dimitris@ontologicon.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 18:29:19 +0300
Message-Id: <53e76bbd01e98921be129469a7908963@ontologicon.com>
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
To: Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux <dom@w3.org>

Hi Dom

I'll provide feedback where applicable since I'm (still, unfortunately, 
plenty of work) working on the SpecGL implementation report.

I'll model the report on the table you present for each specification 
covered, since it really suits the report's needs. I'm currently 
transferring the notes I've made to your table.

Thanks

/Dimitris

On 21 Apr 2005, at 13:06, Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux wrote:

Hi QA WG,

I've (almost) completed SpecGL ICS for SpecGL:
http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2005/04/specgl-specgl-ics.html

The good news is that SpecGL does indeed conform to SpecGL, since we
have yes or n/a to all the Requierments. With regard to Good practices,
there is one we don't pass: "Write Test assertions". Given what SpecGL
is and its audience, I think this is OK, but maybe we should have a more
formal answer as to why we don't?

Also, I haven't yet filled up the answer for GP 15 (Use optional
features as warranted) since we're in the process of discussing whether
GP are indeed optional features. I think to pass the GP we should
document why they are optional - I haven't found such a description in
SpecGL, but maybe I missed it?

Of course, I would appreciate a careful review of the completed ICS, to
see whether any of you disagrees with my assessment, or doesn't find the
referenced text a convincing implementation of the Req/GP.

Dom
-- 
Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/
W3C/ERCIM
mailto:dom@w3.org
Received on Friday, 22 April 2005 15:29:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:20 GMT