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

Re: profiles/modules/levels

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 10:07:21 -0600
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030429095502.02543ec0@terminal.rockynet.com>
To: Andrew Thackrah <andrew@opengroup.org>
Cc: www-qa@w3.org

At 02:32 PM 4/29/03 +0100, you 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.

Just to be clear, these three DoV refer to common ways in which the 
technology may be subdivided for conformance-specification purposes.

>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.

It is an interesting point.  "DoV" in general refers to the "ways in which 
conformant implementions can vary amongst themselves".  We have enumerated 
8 DoV (the Enumerated DoV), with some argument ongoing about GL3.  I don't 
think that we are pretending (or should pretend) that the Enumerated DoV 
exhaust the possibilities.

I recall arguing in the past, my view of GL3 as a catch-all to flush out a 
spec's conformance assumptions that do not fit into one of the other 
GL.  This would include the other 7 DoV GL.

So ... are you suggesting a CP for a generic or catch-all DoV?  Roughly, 
something like, "Describe any ways in which conformant implementations may 
vary amongst themselves, if those ways are not subsumed under one of the 
Enumerated DoV."

-Lofton.

>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 12:05:15 GMT

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