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

Re: AI-20050131-1

From: Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 16:48:33 +0100
To: richard.t.kennedy@boeing.com
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1107791313.5527.74.camel@stratustier>
Hi Richard,

Le lundi 07 février 2005 à 06:42 +0000, richard.t.kennedy@boeing.com a
écrit :
> They may be reading much more into the definition of the term ‚Äúclass‚ÄĚ
> than was intended by the QA WG. Many programming disciplines have formal
> definitions of classes. My reading of the definition of “Class of
> Products‚ÄĚ in the glossary strikes me as a non-technical (i.e., informal)
> use of the term class.
> 
> So their objection might be satisfied by redefining ‚ÄúClass of Products‚ÄĚ
> as the “generic name for the group of products or services to which it 
> has
> been determined the specification applies, (i.e., target of the
> specification). A specification may identify several classes of 
> products.‚ÄĚ

This change does indeed clarify what we mean by classes of products; I
support its inclusion in the Spec. I'd rather not change the terminology
"class of product" at this point, since we've been advertising it quite
a bit in the past years and seems pretty good to me (maybe "class of
implementations" would have been a better choice back then, but I still
think we should avoid changing the terminology now).

With regard to amending the "deprecated features" wrt classes of
products, I hope we can keep it as is, since I think the current form is
more useful than the one without references to classes of product; I
guess we'll know better when we get back to the XML Core WG with this
proposal.

Thanks!

Dom
-- 
Dominique Haza√ęl-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/
W3C/ERCIM
mailto:dom@w3.org


Received on Monday, 7 February 2005 15:48:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:19 GMT