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

RE: levels/options considered harmful

From: Kirill Gavrylyuk <kirillg@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 10:53:49 -0700
Message-ID: <B3F0DACD72892E4DB7E8296C6C9FC2F605075027@red-msg-03.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, <www-qa@w3.org>
Cc: "Jim Hendler" <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
In some cases they are evil for interop, in some cases they actually
help interop. 
Optional features are only one particular case of conformance flavors.
Conformance flavors also include:
- Alternative sets of choices (XSLT is an example)
- Adjuncts that are not part of the core functionality (binding to lower
layer protocols)

In any case, they are a requirement for most of the specs, so we have to
deal with them in the guidelines. 

XML is a special case, since it is the base spec for a wide range of
industry standards.

We could add a note:
"Having multiple flavors of conformance may impact interoperability."



-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Connolly [mailto:connolly@w3.org] 
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 7:18 PM
To: www-qa@w3.org
Cc: Dan Connolly; Jim Hendler
Subject: levels/options considered harmful

regarding:

"Guideline 3. Specify flavors of conformance.  "
	-- http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-qaframe-spec-20020515/

That guideline is presented as if different
flavors of conformance have no downside whatsoever.

I don't think that's the case.

"flavors of conformance" are evil. They're
the antithesis of interoperability.

Note design goal 5 of XML:

"The number of optional features in XML is to be kept to the absolute
minimum, ideally zero."

 -- http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml#sec-origin-goals

I suggest that should be a design goal of
all W3C specs. Please update qaframe accordingly.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 22 May 2002 13:54:31 GMT

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