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

Re: Umbrella Specifications Discussion

From: Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 18:21:10 +0200
To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Cc: "'www-qa-wg@w3.org'" <www-qa-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1118852470.15789.115.camel@stratustier>
Le mercredi 15 juin 2005 ŗ 10:12 -0600, Lofton Henderson a ťcrit :
> I don't think "different advancement" is necessarily the issue.  The issue 
> still exists when they (multiple parts) are all done, if either:
> -- they contain multiple conflicting conformance bits;
> -- or, they contain no clear conformance bits at all, that allow you to 
> draw conformance conclusions about the collection as a whole or common 
> conformance concepts that apply to multiple parts.
> "Umbrella specification" is a handle for dealing with that.

OK, if I understand correctly, you're saying that ViS should (or may?)
address the need for a technology developed as a collection of documents
to define in a well-known document (the umbrella specification) how the
documents in this collection interact conformance-wise?

In other words - and this is consistent with what Karl was doing as well
-, we would introduce this concept as a way to name the results of what
we think is a good practice (usability-wise for Karl, conformance-wise
for you). I guess I'm not sure there is much benefit in introducing the
term, but there is no big harm either, so I wouldn't object to that.

Then the question is: does it fit in ViS? and if so, where? I'm pretty
confident that if we want to keep it there, it shouldn't stay where it
currently is (between levels and deprecated features).

Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/

Received on Wednesday, 15 June 2005 16:21:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:14:35 UTC