- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 16:53:23 -0600
- To: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
- Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
Karl, This is a nice survey of the current usage of versions, levels, editions, revisions, etc. Do you think we should integrate or somehow reference it in Spec Extech? Or develop it into a quick QA Note? Or...? Further comments... At 02:53 PM 8/13/02 -0400, Karl Dubost wrote: >It's very hard to define sometimes a kind of consistency in the spec of >W3C because the way before are versionning, calling, updating the spec is >very different. > >I wonder if we should propose clear numbering and naming scheme. There should be better consistency. But should QA do it, or Comm, or TAG, or a collaboration, or ...? Note this from the Manual of Style, section 9.1.1: "The name of your document in the document head and on the technical reports index [TR] will read as follows. Optional elements are in square brackets. Title [(ACRONYM)] ["Level" n] ["Specification"][: Subtitle] ["Module"] [(nth "Edition")] ["Version" Version_Number] Try not to invent a new naming convention. Capitalize title words following U.S. usage." It doesn't say any more about how any of the terms "Level", "Module", "Edition", "Version" should be used. (From: http://www.w3.org/2001/06/manual/#title) >Also, if we should define in the QA Framework (Core??? ;) ) My first thought is that we should talk to Comm about it. This seems to fall somewhere between SpecGL, pubrules, and Manual of Style. -Lofton. >a way to organize a technology or if it's the role of the TAG? For >example, If you have Modules, create one Document by Module and create a >Core Document. I don't say it's the good solution, I'm just saying that >all the Family are inconsistent between families, and sometimes even in >one family. > > >Examples: > >* HTML Family >*************** > >HTML 3.2 >HTML 4.0 -> HTML 4.01 (Revised) >XHTML 1.0 -> XHTML 1.0 2nd Edition (Revised) >XHTML Modularization > Sub family XHTML Basic >XHTML 1.1 > Based on XHTML Modularization (XHTML Core?) >XHTML 2.0 > One spec with all the modules with their own semantic. > "XHTML 2 is a member of the XHTML Family of markup > languages. It is an XHTML Host Language as defined > in XHTML Modularization." > AND *** !!! *** > "XHTML 2 updates many of the modules defined in > XHTML Modularization 1.0 [XHTMLMOD], and includes > the updated versions of all those modules and their > semantics." > Why they have not updated XHTML Modularization to > XHTML Mod 2 and made a reference to it. It's inconsistent. > >* CSS Family >************** > >CSS Level 1 -> CSS Level 1 (Revised) only the date has changed >CSS Level 2 -> CSS Level 2 Revision 1 (ongoing revision) short name >CSS 2.1 >CSS 3 (becoming Modular) http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-roadmap/ > not more Level in the title, but in the text > it's still CSS level 3 or CSS3. > For example, in CSS3 module: Fonts, > "The font decoration properties are new to CSS3." > and 2 lines after > "It contains a proposal for features to be included in CSS level 3." > > There's no CSS 3 Core, the roadmap could be, but it's not linked > to the modules documents. For example, > WebFonts http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-roadmap/#webfonts > links to CSS2 and not to the CSS3 module: > Web Fonts http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-css3-webfonts-20020802/ > I guess it's a maintainance problem. > >* DOM Family >************** > >DOM Level 1 version 1.0 (Rec) >DOM Level 2 Core version 1.0 (Rec) > DOM Level 2 Events version 1.0 (Rec) > DOM Level 2 HTML version 1.0 (LCWD) > DOM Level 2 Style version 1.0 (Rec) > etc. >DOM Level 3 Core version 1.0 (WD) > DOM Level 3 Events version 1.0 (LCWD) > etc. > >* MathML Family >***************** > >MathML 1.0 -> MathML 1.01 (revised) >MathML 2.0 > >* SMIL >******** > >SMIL 1.0 >SMIL 2.0 > SMIL 2.0 is modular but all in one document. An introductory > chapter called "SMIL 2.0 Modules" (Core?) introduces the > concepts. Each chapter is a module. > You also have the notion of Profile defined in chapter 13 > and 14. > >* SVG Family >************** > >SVG 1.0 >SVG 1.1 > Modularization of SVG 1.0 > Sub family SVG Mobile > >* XML Family >************** > >XML 1.0 -> XML 1.0 Second Edition (Revised) >XML 1.1 > New kind of spec which is a "patch" to the XML 1.0 > but which is different because the previous version is > not XML 1.0. > To have a full XML XX spec you have to add XML 1.0 2nd + XML 1.1 > Strange way to do it :) > >* XSL Family >************** > >XSL Version 1.0 / XSLT Version 1.0 > The version is this time the numbering of the spec... > Once again a different way to do it. > > >-- >Karl Dubost / W3C - Conformance Manager > http://www.w3.org/QA/ > > --- Be Strict To Be Cool! --- >
Received on Tuesday, 13 August 2002 18:53:17 UTC