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

Re: profiles/modules/levels

From: Mark Skall <mark.skall@nist.gov>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 10:00:32 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030429095609.01d19710@mailserver.nist.gov>
To: Andrew Thackrah <andrew@opengroup.org>
Cc: <www-qa@w3.org>

At 02:32 PM 4/29/2003 +0100, Andrew Thackrah wrote:




>But what if the spec author choses another type of architecture that we
>have not thought of? My argument is about this case. I want to make sure 
>that our
>checkpoints address this possibility. At the moment we have specific
>checkpoints for p, m and l. But if someone wants to use a new type of Dov
>called 'personality' or whatever then SpecGL is silent. So I am arguing
>that when we roll the checkpoints into a single GL, we should keep the
>specific checkpoints for the important concepts of p/m/l but ensure that
>we have general checkpoints too.


An implementation can be conformant to SpecGL and include extensions.  If 
someone wants to use another form of DOV, they may.  That is a (conformant) 
extension.  Since there is no way of pre-determining what kind of DOV (or 
any other type of extension) someone may choose to include there is nothing 
to gain by having general checkpoints.  The general checkpoint would be 
redundant.

Mark



>-Andrew
>
>On Mon, 28 Apr 2003 david_marston@us.ibm.com wrote:
>
> >
> > 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 Tuesday, 29 April 2003 10:02:14 GMT

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