W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa@w3.org > February 2005

Re: QA Framework: Specification Guidelines: Umbrella specification

From: Gary Feldman <gfeldman@marsdome.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 03:04:16 +0000
Message-Id: <b963cf4625e740586ecfa6f006217124@marsdome.com>
To: www-qa@w3.org

Karl Dubost wrote:
> Le 26 janv. 2005, à 09:36, Gary Feldman a écrit :
>> Is the entire discussion of umbrella specifications really necessary?
> We defined it because there's a tendency to publish a technology as a 
> set of specifications, which is not a problem.

If that's not a problem, then what is the problem?

>     Though some WGs have adopted another way of pushing their 
> technologies and push documents one by one without having a full 
> consistent set and then giving inconsistencies, in terms of glossary, 
> lack of conformance section, maturity along the Rec Track, etc.

Are you saying that the problem is that some groups choose to release 
documents incrementally, so that the specification isn't really 
complete?  And that as a result, they wind up with inconsistencies?

If so, I don't see how including the discussion of umbrella 
specifications will help that.  Perhaps there's a need for a section on 
the relationships between specifications, the need to maintain 
consistency (both functional and stylistic) with strongly related 
specs, and avoiding piecemeal specs without putting some effort into 
how the pieces will fit.  I don't remember seeing anything to that 
effect, though I admit that I wasn't looking for this specifically in 
the rest of the document.

>     The concept of Umbrella specification has been created to stress 
> the obvious (not rocket science) as you said, but which seems not 
> necessary understood by some WGs.

Or to put it another way, I don't think it achieves what you want it to 

Received on Friday, 4 February 2005 11:14:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:40:36 UTC