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

Re: [qaframe-spec] What is an implementation?

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2003 01:08:52 +0200
To: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
Cc: www-qa@w3.org
Message-ID: <3fdf7177.385842351@smtp.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>

* Alex Rousskov wrote:
>>   The current Specification Guidelines document
>> <http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2003/08/qaframe-spec> does not define what it
>> consideres an implementation. For example, is a MathML document
>> considered an implementation of the MathML specification? If it is
>> considered an implementation, this should be made explicit. If it is not
>> considered an implementation, the document lacks checkpoints for
>> documents, it is for example nowadays quite common for web authors to
>> include conformance claims for their web site on their web site but
>> Guideline 9 only considers "implementations".
>
>Would it be sufficient to say that "implementation" is anything that
>is a subject to specification's conformance statement (explicit or
>implied)?

I do not consider myself an implementer of the XHTML 1.0 specification
if I author an XHTML 1.0 document, so even if that could be sufficient
in some sense, the term "implementation" should be reconsidered to
ensure it does not get misinterpreted when people have not read the
definition (participants in a mailing list discussion for example). In
other words, referring to documents with "implementation" is confusing
and should be avoided.
Received on Wednesday, 3 September 2003 19:09:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 12:14:00 GMT