- From: David Marston/Cambridge/IBM <david_marston@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 17:27:31 -0400
- To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
Ck 4.3: I think there is such a thing as a mandatory module, and there may well be cases where the implementation of two modules requires that a third also be implemented. Whether one module can require another is more controversial, since you get into the territory covered by levels. How about this verbiage? "If modules are chosen, indicate any mandatory modules, dependencies among modules, or constraints against combined implementation of particular pairs of modules." I'm not entirely sold on this myself, since I think modules should be, well, modular. But I could also see modules as the most flexible and universal way to divide specifications. Ck 5.1: Use of profiles and levels together is tricky. I think that the profiles drive the spec, and you could have a Level 1 for each profile, just as you could for each module. GL 8: A new checkpoint to comment on interop? I'm opposed right now, because I think the questionnaire or pro forma addresses this well enough. Ck 10.1: Change the word "clause" to something else? I'd favor a change. I think this came from the NIST people, so maybe one of them can comment further. Ck 11.1: Avoid overloading the word "levels"? A big +1 from me! .................David Marston
Received on Tuesday, 30 July 2002 17:30:50 UTC