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

LC comment for SpecGL : 'CP9.6 conformance requirements and rationale may be too narrow.'

From: by way of the Lastcall Form <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 05:44 +0900
To: www-qa@w3.org
Message-Id: <20030319204428.6914F4FE@toro.w3.mag.keio.ac.jp>

Here is a last call comment from Lofton Henderson (lofton@rockynet.com) 
on QA Framework : Specifications Guidelines (and Examples and Techniques)
received by the LC form system.

Submitted on behalf of: N/A
Comment type: Substantive
The comment applies to: "9.6 Require that implementations ... alternatives to extensions"
Comment title: CP9.6 conformance requirements and rationale may be too narrow.

Checkpoint 9.6 conformance requirements talk about an operating mode under which only strict-conforming content may be produced.  I think that this may be too narrow a requirement.  Would we consider the intent of the checkpoint to be satisfied if an implementation generated strict-conforming 'alt' content (to use the HTML analogy) to a private extension?  In my opinion, a no-extensions mode is the best way to satisfy this CP.  But is it the only way?

Note.  There is some question why someone would include the extension at all, if the 'alt' content is "equivalent".  Perhaps it is a way of round-tripping private functions of an implementation, while providing an alternative formulation that other implementations can use.

Proposed resolution : 
'Alt' mechanisms that contain only strict-conforming content, and achieve equivalent effect, should qualify.  

This comment was submitted through the lastCall form system,
designed by Martin Duerst and Adapted for the QAWG by Olivier Thereaux.
Received on Wednesday, 19 March 2003 15:44:30 UTC

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