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

Re: profiles/modules/levels

From: Andrew Thackrah <andrew@opengroup.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 22:57:10 +0100 (BST)
To: <www-qa@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0304292249590.20763-100000@hyperion>

Hi Mark,
One concern I have about this explanation is that a spec author
may not regard a DoV as being an extension. If a new-DoV [to use
 Lofton's word] is engineered into the spec from the early days then
I think that the authors would be confused if we told them that it
counted as an extension.
Even though I'm closer to SpecGL than many spec author's may ever be
I still find this argument a subtle one, even though it seems
technically good.


On Tue, 29 Apr 2003, Mark Skall wrote:

> 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
Received on Tuesday, 29 April 2003 17:58:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:40:32 UTC