- From: <karl@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 03:27:04 -0000
- To: www-html-editor@w3.org
Hi,
This is a QA Review comment for "XHTML 2.0"
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xhtml2-20060726/
2006-07-26
8th WD
About http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xhtml2-20060726/
It is not always clear in the specification what is the content model and or constraints on an element, attribute in the specification. Implementers, Web developers have to read the RelaxNG Schema to understand the constraints and/or to follow multiple links to really understand.
Links are great because they drive to the appropriate definition, but a more systematic way of presenting the definition and the data would be better.
==============================================
Element X
Definition: Short definition
List of elements authorized:
List of possible attributes:
List of testable assertions:
Rationale: list of explanations and use cases for this element.
with Examples
Implementation constraints depending on the class of products.
Class 1
Class 2
Class 3
During WD, Last Call and CR *in the specification*
List of Issues: list of issues for this element with *links* to the content of the *discussions*
List of Test Cases: List of test cases with links
List of Implementations for this particular element, if any.
==============================================
Same thing for attributes.
It seems to be overconstraining and a lot of work, but it is the only way the HTML WG will show and not tell about the possibilities and *benefits* of XHTML 2.0. There is a *real* need to show.
--
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager, QA Activity Lead
QA Weblog - http://www.w3.org/QA/
*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Thursday, 17 August 2006 03:28:52 UTC