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

Re: [SpecGL-impl] xml:id Last Call

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2005 18:53:47 -0700
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20041227125546.026af9f0@localhost>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org

While getting ready for my own review, I did some spot checking of other 
reviews.  While I haven't looked at much of them very carefully, this bit 
caught my attention -- I have a problem with this Requirement (2.2.A) of 
SpecGL.

Karl writes that xml:id satisfies it...

>2.2.A: Identify who or what will implement the specification.
>http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-qaframe-spec-20041122/#implement-principle
>YES/NO/Not Applicable: Explain why?
>         YES
>         http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-xml-id-20041109/#intro
>         In the introduction explain that the xml:id specification gives a
>uniform mechanism for XML processors and XML document to create
>identifiers for XML Schema and DTD.

This Requirement derived from the earlier Checkpoint about "identify 
Classes of Product".  CoP were items for which the specification defines 
conformance requirements.

I can't see how the referenced text in xml-id satisfies a requirement to 
identify classes of product.  This Introduction text only contains some 
vague  generalizations about what xml:id is for.  If it was our intent, in 
our attempt to avoid scary technical jargon, that xml:id passes the 
successor Requirement (2.2.A) to the original CoP requirement, then I think 
we have gone too far.

IMO, what the referenced #intro text in xml:id says about conformance and 
Classes of Product is relatively worthless, and fairly obscure as well.  If 
it is our intent that xml:id passes that SpecGL requirement, then I think 
we have made the requirement much too wishy-washy (in other words, it is 
relatively worthless, IMO).

Regards,
-Lofton.

At 09:36 AM 12/9/2004 -0500, Karl Dubost wrote:

>Hi,
>
>I have done a review [1] of xml:id Last Call [2] specification with the 
>Text ICS template [3] of SpecGL version Nov 22, 2004
>
>We may have one candidate that would please Mark Skall.
>
>I will quote my message to the XML WG
>[[[
>The Good News:
>         xml:id is almost conformant to QA SpecGL LC version Nov 22, 2004
>         if you modify the specification for
>                 - 3.2.B "Indicate which conformance requirements
>                   are mandatory, which are recommended and
>                   which are optional."
>                 - 4.3.A "Address Extensibility"
>
>         which are both really easy to meet. It's just a question of wording.
>]]] - [1]
>
>
>[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-id/2004Dec/0009
>[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-xml-id-20041109/
>[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2004Dec/0008
>[4] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-qaframe-spec-20041122/
>
>--
>Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
>W3C Conformance Manager
>*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
>
>
Received on Monday, 3 January 2005 01:53:55 GMT

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