- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 18:43:13 -0600
- To: David Marston/Cambridge/IBM <david_marston@us.ibm.com>, www-qa-wg@w3.org
All -- About levels... At 05:27 PM 7/30/02 -0400, David Marston/Cambridge/IBM wrote: >[...] > >Ck 5.1: Use of profiles and levels together is tricky. I think that the >profiles drive the spec, I agree. >and you could have a Level 1 for each profile, >just as you could for each module. I have an example of a standard with 4 levels (historical fallout), and several associated profiles. In the "A" profile, you can have content instances that are self-identified as A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, but these are not all recognized conformance categories. The conformance specifications recognize A-3 and A-4. I.e., UA support for A-1 or A-2 alone is not conforming. All of the examples of functional levels that I can think of are a consequence of progressive historical enrichment of a standard. CSS 1, 2, 3 DOM 1, 2, 3 (ISO) CGM 1, 2, 3, 4 Does anyone have a good example of functional levels as a deliberate functional design, e.g., that could subdivide a modularization? People have postulated things like low-precision/high-precision levels, etc. Can someone point to a W3C (or otherwise) example? In SVG conformance, there is a notion of normal-quality versus high-quality. The latter subsumes all of the former, and adds additional requirements. It tempts one to think "levels", but is not called that. Because there is also the concept of static-rendering versus dynamic (again the latter subsumes the former). The two concepts combine combine, a 2x2 cross product, yielding 4 conformance defined categories: normal-static, highQuality-static, normal-dynamic, highQuality-dynamic. Not levels here. So ... examples? -Lofton.
Received on Thursday, 1 August 2002 20:40:15 UTC