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

Re: More about Type of Spec and Class of Product (Spec Guideline 2)

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 16:00:43 -0600
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020813154916.03cd93a0@rockynet.com>
To: www-qa@w3.org

At 10:36 AM 8/13/02 -0400, David Marston/Cambridge/IBM wrote:
>[...]
>The latest taxonomy of the types of W3C specs is:
>1. foundation or abstract (e.g., Infoset),
>2. content/data (e.g., MathML, SVG),
>3. protocols (e.g., SOAP),
>4. processors (e.g., XSLT, XML Query),
>5. APIs (e.g., DOM),
>6. notation/syntax (e.g., XPath),
>7. set of events (e.g., one part of XForms),
>8. rules for deriving profiles (e.g., part of SVG).
>
>Yesterday, Dominique wrote:
> >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
> >"content/data formatting"
>
>As someone who works with the XSLT spec as my primary occupation, I
>find it pretty clear that the spec intends to define the behavior of
>a processor. [...more explanation...]

If we want to pursue this as an issue, we probably have to do so after the 
pending WD publication.  Is it still an issue?

The question is also still open, about a suggested suffix for 
#2:  "formatting", versus "syntax" or "syntax and ..." or 
"...other?..."  (Similarly, this probably waits until after publication.)

>[...]
>I think we should use this list to discuss the classification scheme,
>but only get really active on it after the next Working Draft is out
>for comments.

Yes, that is the purpose of this WD publication -- feedback on direction.

-Lofton.
Received on Tuesday, 13 August 2002 18:00:36 GMT

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