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

Re: Should modules be divisible?

From: Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Date: 12 Aug 2002 16:15:23 +0200
To: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
Cc: www-qa@w3.org
Message-Id: <1029161724.16595.598.camel@stratustier>

Le lun 12/08/2002 ŗ 16:06, Al Gilman a ťcrit :
> At 08:58 AM 2002-08-12, Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux wrote:
> >The current editor draft of the spec GL says:
> >
> >"Atomicity of modules within profiles represents a clean design, and a
> >reflects that the modularization has been well tailored to the goal of
> >building profiles from modules"
> >http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2002/08/qaframe-spec-0804.html#Gd-group-requirements-modules
> >
> >This is said in the general verbiage of the GL about modules. I wonder
> >if this should not be a checkpoint instead since it does bring a
> >judgment on the design of modules.
> This kind of motherhood should be expunged from the document.
> The W3C lacks the organizational "capability maturity" after the
> language of the CMU/SEI 'Capability Maturity Model' to ensure that
> modules it ordains are uniformly fit to claim atomicity.
> One can only
> experiment with both atomic and subsettable premises in appropriate
> contexts and make the groundrules as to what the terms of offer of
> a module are.

What about the CR phase? Isn't the right time to ensure that atomicity
of modules make sense? Provided that the PR entrance criteria is
restrictive enough on the module implementation, I think the process
ensures the possibility of such a claim. And if that's the case, the QA
framework should probably provide some guidance on this.

Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/
Received on Monday, 12 August 2002 10:15:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:40:29 UTC