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

Re: Clarification on spec categories [was: Where "Rules for Profiles" fit into Spec Guidelines]

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 16:25:00 -0600
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020812160350.0478b670@rockynet.com>
To: Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux <dom@w3.org>, David Marston/Cambridge/IBM <david_marston@us.ibm.com>
Cc: www-qa@w3.org

At 04:08 PM 8/12/02 +0200, Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux wrote:

>I think it would be worth clarifying the following points on the list of
>categories for specification [1]:
>- the categorization mechanism is not described: it would be good to say
>from where this categorization comes. It's probably as simple as "what
>the specification describes"

Done.

>- the 4th bullet "processors" doesn't answer the same question as the
>other bullets: XSLT doesn't specify a "processor", but a processing
>language. I would say too that the 2nd bullet would be clearer with

I'd like David's feedback on this suggestion.

>"content/data formatting"

Is "formatting" the right word?  For example, SVG 1.0 says "features and 
syntax".  Since so much of the SVG specification is concerned with 
specifying associated graphical graphical meaning (presentation) of the SVG 
elements, "syntax and semantics" is a commonly heard catch-all.


>Another good thing would be to provide a table with the current W3C
>Recommendations and the categories where they fit [not in the framework,
>but as a companion document in /QA/ space for instance].

I agree that it ought to be a companion, in /QA/.  I could see endless 
arguments about the categorizations.  IMO, the exact categorization scheme 
that we settle on (or accuracy of its application to W3C) is not the main 
point.  The main point is that specifications be self-reflective about what 
they are defining.  This is a way to do it.

-Lofton.
Received on Monday, 12 August 2002 19:26:27 GMT

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