- From: Dmitry Lenkov <Dmitry.Lenkov@oracle.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 14:23:26 -0700
- To: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>, "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- CC: public-xml-core-wg <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
I agree with Paul. Dmitry Paul Grosso wrote: >I hope others chime in, because I don't know how to answer. > >At [1], I read: > > Clearly identify the class of products (i.e., type of > products or services) upon which the requirements are imposed. > >and I ask myself whether I'd be able to do that for, say, >the xml:id spec in such a way that would allow xml:id to >go to PR, and I can't. I either don't understand what's >wanted and/or I can't figure out how to identify upon what >products xml:id is imposing what requirements. > >So I'm sitting here thinking that I'd never be able to get >xml:id to go to PR if the QA Framework requirement is >imposed upon us. > >If others think they understand what we'd have to do to >xml:id (just to take one example) to satisfy the QA Framework >requirement being imposed, then I guess it's just me, and >we can forget making any WG response. > >Henry, if you think you know how to make our specs comply >with whatever this QA requirement is, given that you are >the WG staff contact, then we can just have you add the >necessary parts to any of our specs to have them comply. >Just so long as I don't have to do it, because I couldn't. > >paul > > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Henry S. Thompson [mailto:ht@inf.ed.ac.uk] >>Sent: Thursday, 12 May, 2005 6:45 >>To: Paul Grosso >>Cc: public-xml-core-wg >>Subject: 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 21:23:40 UTC