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

Re: rewrite of TOC checkpoints.

From: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 18:32:54 -0700 (MST)
To: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
cc: www-qa@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.44.0211031759410.81648-100000@measurement-factory.com>

On Sun, 3 Nov 2002, Lynne Rosenthal wrote:

> In Guideline 13, add:
>
> Checkpoint:  Provide a way to find conformance information

If checkpoint "title" is not normative/testable text, I would suggest
saying some thing like "easy way" or "fast way" to make the intention
apparent.

> To fulfill this checkpoint, a specification MUST provide at least one
> navigation mechanism that allows the reader to locate all
> conformance-related information in the specification.

Two problems/concerns:

	- scanning a spec word-by-word can be considered
	  "navigation"; searching the document for word
	  "conformance" is a navigation mechanism; thus,
	  every text-based spec will meet your requirement

	- if conformance clause requires that all MUSTs are
	  supported (for example), does "all conformance-related
	  information" include location of every MUST? If yes,
	  that may be impossible to index in a usable way. If no,
	  "all related" should be defined to exclude individual
	  checkpoints (like "all MUSTs").

Thanks,

Alex.


-- 
                            | HTTP performance - Web Polygraph benchmark
www.measurement-factory.com | HTTP compliance+ - Co-Advisor test suite
                            | all of the above - PolyBox appliance
Received on Sunday, 3 November 2002 20:33:05 GMT

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