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

Re: DoV and verifiability

From: David Marston/Cambridge/IBM <david_marston@us.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 16:08:00 -0400
To: www-qa@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF5054B3D9.77BE8C2B-ON85256C2C.006D7084@lotus.com>


Alex wrote:
>IMO, you cannot come up with something significantly more
>"quantifiable, measurable, or verifiable" than a simple SHOULD. You
>are just increasing the level of complexity without covering any new
>ground. In fact, you are losing ground because you do not
>(and cannot) predict all DoV that will exist!

I think the SpecGL can and does enumerate all the dimensions of
variability that WGs are allowed to use. It requires the spec to
convey the outcomes of explicit WG decisions on each one. In turn, that
means that the WG had to consider whatever variability they intend to
allow and express it using the conceptual model of the eight DoV.
This is possible because one dimension, modules, is highly generic and
can mean just about anything. A good question for debate here is: can
we drop some other DoV, by folding them into modules, without losing
any expressive power that's needed for effective communication from
the WG to the readers of the spec? (And yes, I have a definition of
"effective" available if anyone thinks it's needed.)
.................David Marston
Received on Friday, 6 September 2002 16:08:44 GMT

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