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

Re: [QA Review] xml:id Version 1.0

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 15:46:00 -0500
Message-Id: <CEAF42EB-5F5A-11D9-B2A3-000A95718F82@w3.org>
Cc: 'www-qa-wg@w3.org' <www-qa-wg@w3.org>
To: public-xml-id@w3.org
Dear XML WG,

Le 04 août 2004, à 17:43, Karl Dubost a écrit :
> This is a QA review of
> 	xml:id Version 1.0
> 	W3C Working Draft 7 April 2004
> 	http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-xml-id-20040407/

My initial review of xml:id

> http://www.w3.org/QA/2004/08/xml-id-qa-review

We have discussed [1] in the QA WG about one of the Requirement, that I 
credited successful, but some people in the QA WG thinks that it 
doesn't meet the criteria.

Looking at
	http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-xml-id-20041109/

Let's say that the point Requirement 2.2.A [2] is then failed
	"Identify who or what will implement the specification."

To meet the criteria of this requirement in the specification, please 
do this modification to your document following the techniques:

[[[
Give the classes of products in the specification:
	1.  	 Think about all the types of products or services that will 
implement this technology, group those that are similar and/or 
basically achieve the same purpose, and determine the generic name for 
the group.  This would be the class of product.
	2.  	List these classes of products in the specification.
	3.  	Describe them as part of the scope.
]]] - [3]


Then as a suggestion for your prose

=================================================================
1. Introduction
	1.1 Scope of xml:id
  	
	Classes of Products
        Here is the list of classes of products for which this 
specification defines conformance requirements.
        * XML Processors
			[Prose explaining what's an XML processors]
        * DTD and XML Schemas (non required but encouraged)
			[Prose explaining why]
        * Author of XML documents (non required but encouraged)
			[Prose explaining why]
=================================================================

What about XML schemas and DTD authoring tools? or more that you might 
think of?

That would make a more satisfying specification.

3.2.B [4] is not met as well
	"Indicate which conformance requirements are mandatory, which are 
recommended and which are optional."
	In the conformance section [5] of xml:id, it's very hard to know what 
are the strict requirement for an XML processors with regards to 
xml:id. That would be good to explicit it in the conformance section, 
then the implementers will have no doubts about it.
	For now it's lost in the prose of the document.

4.3.A [6] is not met

I encourage you first to read this message from Dave Marston, IBM [7]

Suggestion
=================================
xxx. Extensibility of xml:id

[Write prose here if you expect people to extend the behaviors already 
defined in the specification, if not say so. xml:id is not extensible 
and as to be implemented as it is.]
=================================

	

[1] http://www.w3.org/mid/5.1.0.14.2.20041227125546.026af9f0@localhost
[2] 
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-qaframe-spec-20041122/#implement-principle
[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-qaframe-spec-20041122/#implement-tech
[4] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-qaframe-spec-20041122/#req-opt-conf
[5] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-xml-id-20041109/#xmlid-conformance
[6] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-qaframe-spec-20041122/#extensibility
[7] 
http://www.w3.org/mid/OFAAA57F61.7560A892-ON85256F80.00532649@lotus.com

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

Received on Wednesday, 5 January 2005 22:36:30 GMT

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