W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa@w3.org > August 2002

Re: Usage of the word "specification" in the spec GL

From: Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Date: 12 Aug 2002 15:46:47 +0200
To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Cc: www-qa@w3.org
Message-Id: <1029160009.16595.552.camel@stratustier>

Le sam 10/08/2002 ŗ 19:54, Lofton Henderson a ťcrit :
> >This is especially true for profiles and levels which are usually
> >defined in separate documents.
> >
> >Anyway, I think we need:
> >- to clarify the meaning of the word specification in the introduction
> >- adjust the GL accordingly.
> 
> For your second dash-item, how about "specification's functionality" in 
> place of the appropriate occurrences of "specification"?

Err... Do you mean technology's functionality?

>  Would something 
> that simple suffice? 

My suggestions would be to replace "specification" with "technology" in
the 3 concerned GL. 

As an aside:
- I wonder if the GL about levels brings anything useful, since levels
don't really exert any influence on conformance or implementation.
- I begin to wonder if we should try or not to specify a modularization
framework that would allow to create modularized technologies more
easily
- it's rather interesting that all the modules and profiles based
technologies are developed inside the Document Format [1] Domain. Maybe
this should inspire us a relationship between these dimensions of
variability and some product classes.

Dom

1. http://www.w3.org/DF/

-- 
Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/
W3C/INRIA
mailto:dom@w3.org
Received on Monday, 12 August 2002 09:46:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 12:13:59 GMT