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

Re: answer to Dave Marston comment on Conformance section for a technology or for a specification (005)

From: <david_marston@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 10:38:15 -0400
To: www-qa@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF1BE3C785.29ED5BF8-ON85256FFC.004F36AA-85256FFC.0050536D@lotus.com>

Regarding Issue #986:

>As a response to your comment, the QA Working Group has not accepted 
>your comment. An additional decision of the QA WG has removed the 
>"Umbrella Specification" topic from Specification Guidelines to move 
>it to Variability in Specifications.

I agree with that move.

>One technique of Requirement 01 addresses the notion of Conformance when
>the technology is divided in multiple documents.

I agree with the notion in the isolated view in which it is given.
However, neither the umbrella nor the multiple-document technique really
addresses the Schema Part 2 vs. F&O example I gave, because both apply
to umbrella or multiple documents issued by the same WG. The schema
example is about a document from the Schema WG not anticipating that it
would be used independently by the joint XSL/XQuery WGs. Nevertheless,
the wording of the Requirement 01 and its Techniques, accompanied by
Requirements 02 and 03 and Good Practice 08, is sufficiently strong to
push spec editors to do the right thing.

I accept the resolution of the issue.
.................David Marston
Received on Monday, 9 May 2005 14:38:32 UTC

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