W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg@w3.org > June 2009

RE: ACTION-892: Information Conformance Statement for CT Guidelines

From: Rotan Hanrahan <rotan.hanrahan@mobileaware.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 12:12:29 +0100
Message-ID: <D5306DC72D165F488F56A9E43F2045D301FA57DF@FTO.mobileaware.com>
To: "Francois Daoust" <fd@w3.org>, "Charles McCathieNevile" <chaals@opera.com>
Cc: "Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group WG" <public-bpwg@w3.org>
Very nice. I can see this being just one step away from an automated form for submission of compliance reports. All you need to do is put a multi-line text field into the white cells for the "Reason for non-compliance" column and the job's done. I'm not suggesting this be done here, because this is a document intended for reading/printing, but you can see how one could very easily derive an automated form from it.

Interestingly, I wonder if this could be used as a template for other conformance statements in other domains.

(I still prefer the version that has SHOULD *and* MUST.)

---Rotan.

-----Original Message-----
From: Francois Daoust [mailto:fd@w3.org] 
Sent: 29 June 2009 10:23
To: Charles McCathieNevile
Cc: Rotan Hanrahan; Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group WG
Subject: Re: ACTION-892: Information Conformance Statement for CT Guidelines

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 11:13:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:09:54 UTC