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

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

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 15:09:11 -0500
Message-Id: <54FFFBA6-5DC3-11D9-80CE-000A95718F82@w3.org>
To: 'www-qa-wg@w3.org' <www-qa-wg@w3.org>

Le 02 janv. 2005, à 20:53, Lofton Henderson a écrit :
> 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.

My short answer: The best is the enemy of good.

My long answer: Editors and people in WG are humans not bots. I agree 
to achieve the maximum of quality. And for myself I will always try to 
push forward each bit of quality. To have worked in many environments 
where I had to encourage people to create things, stuffs, etc. in the 
right way without being constrained by let say a pay check, I can tell 
that gratification is always better than the stick. The stick never 
works with regards to that.

> 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).

Therefore I can understand you are not satisfied with my review and ask 
for modification, that's perfectly fine and normal.  But more than 
trashing the whole requirement, please improve it.
	Give the wording you think that will be better.
	And even BETTER give the techniques and the template that will help to 
achieve it. If you are not satisfied it's always better to come with 
something that will illustrate what you are saying.
	Another thing you could do is rewrite the Xinclude paragraph to show 
what would have been the prose that will fulfill the requirement.


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

Received on Tuesday, 4 January 2005 04:07:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:14:34 UTC