Re: Spec GL: "explictly state" CP

Dominique writes about:
"Otherwise, explicitly state that [this dimensions] is not supported."

>I'm not sure we want to encumber all of the W3C Spec with a mention of
>no support for all these dimensions. It would probably be better to
>propose a generic way of stating that any other dimension of
>variability not explicitly allowed is not supported [but without using
>the very QA-only expression of "dimension of variability".]

One possible approach is to remove that negative checkpoint from each
dimension, but have a pointer in each across to something in GL 10:
"If [this dimension] is not used, make an explicit statement of non-use
per the provisions of Checkpoint 10.x." Then, part of Ck 10.x says:
"For each of the following specification techniques that is not used,
state that fact explicitly: multiple classes of product, profiles,
modules, degrees of conformance, deprecation, levels, discretionary
choices, extensibility, and open-ended discretion to support languages,
locales, etc." (rough wording to convey the general idea)

This way, a person bent on implementing or testing the spec can start
from the table of contents, navigate to conformance verbiage, and find
out what variability exists, as well as those dimensions that are
designated as invariant.
.................David Marston

Received on Friday, 2 August 2002 12:48:21 UTC