W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa@w3.org > April 2003

Re: profiles/modules/levels

From: <david_marston@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 21:49:21 -0400
To: www-qa@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF58220082.87FD20CF-ON85256D17.0008DB8A-85256D17.000A0F1F@lotus.com>

Andrew Thackrah writes:
>...since it seems from QAWG discussion that there are differences of
>opinion on our definition of p/m/l then I don't think we are in a
>position to impose a rigid definition on others....It doesn't matter if
>your DoV does not conform to someone elses definition of a profile or
>whatever - all you have to do is document your chosen system and if you
>have more than one DoV then document the relationship between them.

But it *does* matter, becausae these specs aren't written in isolation,
but (usually) to be part of an integrated Web system. Schema Part 2
defines data types, then XPath builds expressions around those types,
then XForms and XSLT use XPath expressions, etc. If some data types
(e.g., the whole ID-IDREF bundle) are designated as an optional
module, then specs building above that need to say whether they depend
on the full set of types or just the "core" set. QAWG has also talked
about how profiles can be assembled from modules, so the naming of
subsets is useful even within a single spec.

Some WGs may have used the p/m/l terminology in ways other than the
SpecGL-sanctioned meanings in the past, but it's desirable that the
W3C move toward consistent usage. Notice that the documentation terms
"Version", "Edition", and "Part" have been subject to consistency
constraints for some time now, and the specs are better for it.
.................David Marston
Received on Monday, 28 April 2003 21:50:12 GMT

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