- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 08:53:04 -0700
- To: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>, www-qa-wg@w3.org
- Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20021028083918.03f52ec0@rockynet.com>
Here are a few more comments on SpecGL issues and "@@@" flags... At 11:18 AM 10/25/02 -0400, Lynne Rosenthal wrote: >The following are a list of the problems/issues identified in the latest >version of SpecGL http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2002/10/qaframe-spec-20021025 >and marked by @@@. I've indicated the items I think are the highest >priority. Unless someone suggests indicates a preference/priority, my >intention is to address the ** in order > >SpecGL problems/issues > >** indicates priority. >* indicates we can deal with this quickly > >[...] >7.2 reword CP or its TA How about CP rewording: "Define support requirements for deprecated features". And leave the fulfillment criteria more or less as is. >7.3 applicability of CP to class of product (Note. 7.4, not 7.3). Thoughts 1.) yes, it is okay (if the assertion is true about "producers") -- its applicability ought to be clarified and qualified. 2.) is the assertion true? seems like it. But ... how about this scenario? ZML 2.0 deprecates feature "Blah", and explains that producers can achieve the same effect by generating "Foo" and "Bar". Doesn't this also tell ZML 2.0 consumers that they can handle ZML 1.0 content by mapping Blah to Foo+Bar? >G9 rewritten, general consensus I keep thinking that there is a nice way to combine CK9.1 and 9.2, without losing any requirements. For example, 9.1: "Define whether or not conformance is strict." (Subsumes the "if allowed" and "not allowed" parts of 9.1 and 9.2) 9.2: "If extensions are allowed, completely define their scope and constraints". All for now, -Lofton.
Received on Monday, 28 October 2002 10:52:56 UTC