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

Re: Should SpecGL be a spec?

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 12:37:22 -0600
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020905121737.03ecf430@rockynet.com>
To: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
Cc: www-qa@w3.org

At 12:10 PM 9/5/02 -0600, Alex Rousskov wrote:
>[...]
>Measuring is good, though the result of such an exercise is already
>known: SpecGL is not SpecGL-compliant, at any level.

Yes, but it gives us specific data about the ways in which SpecGL is 
deficient.  We are also applying SpecGL to other specifications.  At this 
point, our principal goal with those exercises is not to rate the other 
specifications, but to help us understand what works and what doesn't in 
SpecGL.

>To become
>self-compliant, SpecGL would probably need to be restructured and
>rewritten in a major way (IMO). I would recommend that the exercise is
>given the highest (priority 1?) priority and that already-known core
>issues are discussed before they are written up in the revised spec.

It is a good point, that SpecGL-on-SpecGL ought to happen before the next 
WD (1-nov).  On issues -- "core issues" as well as any others   -- it is 
our intention to mine these (IG-list) comments and discussions for specific 
issues and enter them into the QAWG Issues List [1], to ensure that they 
are addressed and brought to closure.

-Lofton.

[1] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/qawg-issues-html


>It should be possible, for example, to decide whether a huge DoV
>section is needed before [re]writing that section. Similarly, it
>should be possible to decide whether behavioral specs should be
>covered before spending time on an exact scope wording. Same for
>encouraging non-normative illustrations. Etc., etc.
>
>Thank you,
>
>Alex.
>
>--
>                             | HTTP performance - Web Polygraph benchmark
>www.measurement-factory.com | HTTP compliance+ - Co-Advisor test suite
>                             | all of the above - PolyBox appliance
Received on Thursday, 5 September 2002 14:36:40 GMT

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