- From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 11:22:31 +0200
- To: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- CC: Rotan Hanrahan <rotan.hanrahan@mobileaware.com>, Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group WG <public-bpwg@w3.org>
Charles McCathieNevile wrote: > On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:32:00 +0200, Rotan Hanrahan > <rotan.hanrahan@mobileaware.com> wrote: > >> Just commenting from the sidelines... I find the version with SHOULD >> and MUST together to be the better version. While I can understand >> that the SHOULD levels present the implementers with "grey areas" to >> consider, and therefore a greater demand for guidance/explanation, >> seeing these clauses excerpted in this manner does not provide >> sufficient context for a proper understanding. > > Agreed - for my 2c. Agreed as well. >> The tabular format is rather good, I must say. However, I cannot see >> the reason why one would permit a comments cell for the MUST clauses. >> In such cases, failure to comply with a MUST means total >> non-compliance, and I would not offer a "comments box" for excuses. >> Perhaps those cells should be greyed out, and the Introduction amended >> so as to stress that comments only apply to explanations for >> non-compliance with the SHOULD or SHOULD NOT clauses. > > I don't think it matters if they are there - in essence you just need a > single checkbox for MUST, and 'yes' or 'why not' for should - although > being able to note a failure in a seperate column (with explanation of > it) is helpful. But I don't think you need to spend a lot of time on > that. Implementors can edit the table if they really need to for > internal use... Agreed. I gave it another try with two columns: - a "Compliance" column that features a checkbox - a "Reason for non-compliance" column that is greyed with a "N/A" for must-level statements I updated the Abstract and Introduction sections as well. I updated the files in place, same links as before: Version with SHOULD-level and MUST-level statements: http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/ics-090622-must Version with SHOULD-level statements only: http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/ics-090622 Francois. > > cheers > > Chaal > >> My 2c worth. >> >> ---Rotan >> >> PS The text of 4.1.5.4 looks odd. >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: public-bpwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-bpwg-request@w3.org] >> On Behalf Of Francois Daoust >> Sent: 23 June 2009 12:55 >> To: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group WG >> Subject: ACTION-892: Information Conformance Statement for CT Guidelines >> >> Hi, >> >> Per my ACTION-892, please find below links to two different versions of >> the Implementation Conformance Statement that should ship with the >> guidelines. >> >> The action was: >> [[ >> Prepare an ICS with MUST/MUST NOT (to view if that's a good idea), try >> to add a "depends on" column, explain "Not applicable" or remove it. >> ]] >> >> I chose to remove the "Not applicable" column. I agree it merely created >> confusion with no useful outcome. >> I haven't tried to add a "depend on" column. I am not sure how to do it, >> and wonder whether that would be of any use in our case anyway. >> >> The ICS is generated automatically from the spec (through an XSLT >> stylesheet). The excerpts are atomic, i.e. one line per normative >> statement, but that means some sentences needed to be cut into pieces, >> and some excerpts do look meaningless without context. >> >> I prepared two versions of the ICS that matches the latest draft of the >> guidelines: one that contains both SHOULD-level and MUST-level >> statements (this includes SHOULD NOT, RECOMMENDED, and the rest of the >> tribe, of course), and another one that only contains SHOULD-level >> statements. The rationale for the ICS was to have exceptions to the >> SHOULD statements explained, and so we had initially restricted the >> statements to put in the ICS to SHOULD-level statements only. I must say >> that I now find the "full" version with MUST-level statements as well >> more useful. >> >> Version with SHOULD-level and MUST-level statements: >> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/ics-090622-must >> >> >> Version with SHOULD-level statements only: >> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/ics-090622 >> >> >> (Please ignore the Abstract and Introduction sections for the time >> being, they do need to be rewritten, in particular for the version that >> contains SHOULD-level and MUST-level statements) >> >> For dizcussion/rezolution: >> - "SHOULD and MUST" or "SHOULD only"? >> - publish the ICS directly within the guidelines or as a separate >> document? >> - comments to improve the table? >> >> Francois. >> > >
Received on Monday, 29 June 2009 09:23:08 UTC