Re: minimum vs. reference implementation

Al Gilman wrote:
> 
> In many areas, there are many ways to skin a [particular guideline] cat and
> it is hard to choose among them as to one which should be called "minimum."
>  Calling something a "minimum implemention" will lead people to infer that
> _all_ implementations must do _at least_ that, i.e. they all must do it.
> 
> An alternate model is that offered by, for example, the "reference design"
> of a cell phone done by the Trace Center as part of the Section 255 process
> <http://trace.wisc.edu/docs/phones>.  Here the message is not "This is the
> minimum you must do," but rather "See, it is indeed readily achievable
> because you _could_ do it like this."  The Working Group would have to
> convince itself that the example offered is indeed conforming.  But the
> User Agent itself is not required to support this technique to be
> conforming.  It can elect another approach which meets the performance
> requirement stated in the guideline.
> 
> For guidelines where the language "minimum implementation" makes us
> struggle, the working group should feel free to drop back and identify an
> "example conforming implementation" which is felt to be readily achievable.

Yes, I agree that there might be several ways to skin cats in the
pursuit
of the goal of identifying when one has satisfied a checkpoint. Where
possible, we should identify a minimal requirement. Otherwise, giving
a sample and readily achievable technique is a good idea.
 
> Certainly in the case of Guideline 2.1, the idea of a property sheet for
> the current object is something that seems easy to do, and seems to satisfy
> the guideline.  But I would find it hard to call it a "minimum
> implementation" because I don't feel it is a univerally-required function
> where the UA implements something better.

Thank you for these suggestions, Al.

 - Ian

-- 
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783

Received on Saturday, 22 April 2000 14:26:11 UTC