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

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

From: David Marston/Cambridge/IBM <david_marston@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 10:40:18 -0400
To: www-qa@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF4B836104.E10C2485-ON85256C13.004F5AF5@lotus.com>





Dominique writes:
>- I wonder if the GL about levels brings anything useful, since levels
>don't really exert any influence on conformance or implementation.

It was a surprise to read that! I think the influence of levels is
clear when you consider the verbiage constraints in Checkpoint 11.2,
at least after the word "levels" in GL 11 is replaced. 11.2 would,
in my interpretation, require that a spec that uses levels (in the GL
7 sense), to prescribe level-aware verbiage for conformance claims.
Example: All claims of conformance to this spec should state the level
of implementation, [levels enumerated here], which is claimed.

Thus, one implementation could claim to fully implement the Xblah spec
at Level 2, while another implementation claims conformance to Xblah
Level 3.
.................David Marston
Received on Monday, 12 August 2002 10:41:16 GMT

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