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

Re: Should SpecGL be a spec?

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 06:28:15 -0600
Message-Id: <>
To: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
Cc: www-qa@w3.org

At 07:17 AM 9/6/2002 -0400, Lynne Rosenthal wrote:
>Hmm.  Let me elaborate a bit..... I found the DoV discussion and its 
>definition in the glossary somewhat difficult to understand (after several 
>reads, I'm still not sure I  understand the definition).

This is valuable feedback for the editors -- if DoV is a central organizing 
concept, and if its role and reason for being there are unclear, then we 
have a problem that needs fixing.

>I also agree with Alex that the SpecGL shouldn't read like a novel, thus I 
>think there may be too much discussion of DoV.  I'm not saying that all of 
>it should be removed, but I think it may be possible to cut it down and 
>link to a white paper for the more detailed explanation.  You bring up an 
>important point - the rationale for why DoV was 'invented' - that 
>background is important and currently not available to those not involved 
>in its 'creation'.  Again, the white paper would be a good place to 
>capture this evolution information.

Yes.  But clearly its explanation (esp. its role) within SpecGL needs a 
careful look as well, if it is not apparent to readers.


>On another point - I'm somewhat bothered by the long explanations after 
>many of the Guidelines  (e.g., GL2, GL3). I'm not saying this is bad 
>information, only that it takes a bit of reading to get from the GL to the 
>actual Ckpt  So, by the time I get to the Ckpt, I forgot the GL.  I don't 
>have a recommendation for what to do about this.  I think that some of the 
>problem will go away, when we extract the examples and put them in the 
>ExTech document.
>At 08:00 PM 9/5/02, Lofton Henderson wrote:
>>At 03:45 PM 9/5/02 -0400, Lynne Rosenthal wrote:
>>>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.
>>Question.  To clarify, by "some of the DoV discussion", do you 
>>specifically mean SpecGL sec 1.5 [1]?  Or DoV discussion throughout?  (Or 
>>do you mean what Alex is referring to his last paragraph below -- in 
>>order to be self-conforming, how much does SpecGL need to address its own 
>>DoV?  Are some of the enumerated DoV out-of-scope or n/a for a spec of 
>>this type?)
>>I may be misunderstanding, but I'm not sure that I'd agree with moving 
>>the DoV discussion.  We need to recall how we got here and why.
>>In the 20020515 SpecGL WD [1], we had some vague statements about 
>>"flavors of conformance", and it raised some discussion on this list that 
>>flavors are evil (my paraphrase), and that SpecGL needs to discourage 
>>unnecessary variations and flavors.  Before we could even argue the issue 
>>about the latter, we needed to clarify what we meant by "flavors".
>>DoV is how we are trying to organize the discussion of flavors -- the DoV 
>>are the underpinnings of the flavors, if you will.  DoV are how we are 
>>trying to highlight at least some of the key variables that should be 
>>considered by specifications.  No, we won't hit all possible variables, 
>>but I think we have captured a good bit of current W3C practice (as well 
>>as ISO and other venues) in the current factorization.
>>The usefulness of the DoV as an organizing concept for SpecGL is a key 
>>issue that we are putting out for discussion with this working draft.
>>[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-qaframe-spec-20020826/#b2b3b3d135
>>[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-qaframe-spec-20020515/
>>>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!
>>>> > 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,
>>>>                             | HTTP performance - Web Polygraph benchmark
>>>>www.measurement-factory.com | HTTP compliance+ - Co-Advisor test suite
>>>>                             | all of the above - PolyBox appliance
Received on Friday, 6 September 2002 08:30:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:40:29 UTC