Re: Minutes for XML Core WG telcon of 2005 May 11

Paul Grosso writes:

>> We've received a response from the QA group on our
>> comment about QA Framework.  See Paul's message
>> summarizing this at
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005May/0004
>
> Paul doesn't feel their response addresses our concerns,
> and he feels that we should push back on this.
>
> DV, Richard, and Henry tend to agree with Paul (though
> they may not feel as strongly about how much of a fuss
> to make).
>
> ACTION to Henry:  Draft a response to
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005May/0041
> making it clear this is an XML Core WG issue/comment,
> making it clear we aren't satisfied with the response,
> and trying to make it clearer what we're trying to say.

After looking more closely at the new draft [1] and our original
comment [2] I guess I don't now see what to say.  I think it's clear
that just being a member of a named product class doesn't make you
non-conforming, that always only happens if you _claim_ conformance.

Is what we want something that makes clear that a particular product
may be a member of different classes wrt different specs?  So e.g. a
UA may be a parser wrt XML but an API wrt DOM?

Or something that makes it clear that if a product in a covered class
is included or exploited in/by another product, then for the purposes
of conformance to the spec in question, the other product is _also_
covered?

ht

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/#what-conform
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005Jan/0025
-- 
 Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
                     Half-time member of W3C Team
    2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
            Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
                   URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]

Received on Thursday, 12 May 2005 11:44:45 UTC