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

Re: QA Spec Guidelines and Modular Technologies

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 12:49:25 -0600
Message-Id: <>
To: david_marston@us.ibm.com
Cc: www-qa@w3.org

At 11:12 AM 8/17/03 -0400, david_marston@us.ibm.com wrote:

>Lofton Henderson writes:
> >ISO has a formal notion of a multi-part standard.  I don't find that in
> >W3C, although there is this interesting line in W3C Manual of Style:
> >"Title [(ACRONYM)] ["Specification"] ["Part" Part_Number] [: Subtitle]
> >["Module"] [(nth "Edition")] ["Version" Version_Number]"
> >The "["Part" Part_Number]" is not explained (nor are any of the other
> >bits).  Perhaps this would be a useful concept to develop further in
> >W3C, given that standards like CSS3 are already going that way.
> >Then, SpecGL could be applied to an individual part, but in the context
> >of all of the *currently published* parts.  For example, each part need
> >not replicate an almost identical Conformance Clause, but an appropriate
> >general-purpose one must exist in one of the published parts, and must
> >be easy to find from each given part.
>Consider the example of XML Schema Part 2, which has become the main
>W3C spec for datatypes. Technologies other than XML Schema are using
>that spec, without Schema Part 1, as their datatype spec. I'd say it
>needs the SpecGL techniques on its own, not just as part of Schema.

This would seem to be covered by our SpecGL checkpoint, "Checkpoint 10.2. 
Make normative reference to specifications on which the current 
specification depends".  So Xblah 1.0 identifies Schema Part 2 as a 
normative dependency, and clearly spells out what is being used 
(normatively) from Schema Part 2.

Now suppose Schema Part 2 did not have a self-contained Conformance Clause, 
but pointed (normatively) to an all-Schema conformance clause in Part 1 
(this is all hypothetical -- I don't know actually how it is laid out).  Is 
there any problem here?  It would seem to be all well defined, and Xblah 
1.0 would (by normative references) have everything it needs for complete 
conformance specifications.

Multi-part would fit things like Schema and CSS3, and normative reference 
provision would take care of borrowing stuff across technologies.  The same 
principal applies:  SpecGL needs to be applicable to any given 
Recommendation (single Technical Report) in a conformance context that is 
possibly larger than the single TR.

Received on Sunday, 17 August 2003 14:49:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:40:33 UTC