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

LC comment for SpecGL : 'CP 1.4 vague'

From: by way of the Lastcall Form <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 01:28 +0900
To: www-qa@w3.org
Message-Id: <20030311162855.5A6AE49D@toro.w3.mag.keio.ac.jp>

Here is a last call comment from Lynne Rosenthal (lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov) 
on QA Framework : Specifications Guidelines (and Examples and Techniques)
received by the LC form system.

Submitted on behalf of: Ian Jacobs
Comment type: Substantive
The comment applies to: "1.4 Provide examples. "
Comment title: CP 1.4 vague

I think this checkpoint is too vague. Is it possible to break it down into a few more concrete requirements that are more verifiable? For instance:

1 For markup specifications, provide at least one example of each markup construct. 
2 For protocol specifications, provide at least one example of ... 
3 For transformation specifications, illustrate each transformation capability with an example showing input and output. 
4 For UI specifications, provide an example of each construct, and illustrate the desired output using at least one mechanism other than the specification itself (e.g., the SVG specification should not rely on SVG rendering alone to explain what something should look like). 

While you may miss some cases, I think spec editors will find this more helpful than the general goal to "provide examples."

Proposed resolution : 


This comment was submitted through the lastCall form system,
designed by Martin Duerst and Adapted for the QAWG by Olivier Thereaux.
Received on Tuesday, 11 March 2003 11:28:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:40:31 UTC