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

Re: Should SpecGL be a spec?

From: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 15:45:46 -0400
Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.2.20020905154038.033c8900@mailserver.nist.gov>
To: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>, Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Cc: www-qa@w3.org
I agree that some of the DoV discussion should be removed to another 
document.  One thought I had was that it could be put into a white 
paper.  Also, I think that as we revisit the SpecGL and as we develop its 
companion Examples and Techniques document, much of the explanation text 
and examples will be moved into the ExTech document.

lynne



At 02:10 PM 9/5/02, Alex Rousskov wrote:

>On Thu, 5 Sep 2002, Lofton Henderson wrote:
>
> > I think we (QAWG and authors) agree completely, practice what we
> > preach.  We are aware that this (2nd published) WD falls short in a
> > number of ways.  You have pointed out a number of issues that fall
> > in this category.  SpecGL will certainly be conforming by Last Call
> > (anticipated:  1-Feb-2003) -- I can't imagine that we'd have the
> > nerve to put out a document with our names on it otherwise!
>
>Great!
>
> > As an exercise, one of the QAWG members will be measuring SpecGL
> > against itself.  This may happen against this draft, or against the
> > next published draft (anticipated:  1-nov-2002), or both.
>
>Measuring is good, though the result of such an exercise is already
>known: SpecGL is not SpecGL-compliant, at any level.  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 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 15:38:26 GMT

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