- From: Andrew Thackrah <andrew@opengroup.org>
- Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 11:52:03 -0400
- To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
re SpecGL modules/levels/profiles I'm not clear on the difference between a level and a spec version - are they different? Also I currently regard profiles to be a form of product categorization rather than an aid to technical specification. For example when I see products claiming conformance to a technology it is either with reference to a particular specification (e.g. 'conforms to HTTP 1.1') or to a product brand (e.g. 'UNIX') which is a collection of conformance requirements based on a number of lower level specs. In the first case, HTTP 1.1 we have a named spec and a quoted version. The version is very important here. If HTTP had been designed post-specGL would we be saying 'conforms to HTTP level 3' instead? In the second case, if a profile is used to group modules under a name - is this not a form of product classification? I am wondering why a technical specification author should be concerned with issues of product development such as profiling. Perhaps the division of a specification by module is sufficient for a technical description. Any structuring or aggregation of modules and discretionary elements can be performed as needed by product vendors and in conformance programs. We discussed last week if there were any examples of specs that started life with a clear product development plan (using levels) and had trouble thinking of many. This may be because authors of technical specs are more concerned with capturing the functionality than speculating on future developments. There may be good arguments for spec authors to think ahead to the further development of their technology but can this not be addressed by versioning? Also is there not a danger that product classification (if that what profiles are) is treading on the toes of vendors and maybe even inhibiting creativity in the area of product devlopment? -Andrew
Received on Tuesday, 6 August 2002 11:52:08 UTC