- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 08:55:09 -0700
- To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
A few comments on the TAs, posed as issues... CP3.1 --- 1.) Issue -- Ambiguous syntax in TA (hard to parse). Ignoring the editorial oops (repetition of the "EITHER" clause), what is written is: EITHER c1 OR c2 AND c3. What are the parsing rules for this? What is intended is: (EITHER c1 OR c2) AND c3. Without reference to the ConfReqs, how do we know that it's not supposed to be: EITHER c1 OR (c2 AND c3)? 2.) Issue -- Why consolidate independent CRs into single TAs? There are two fairly independent Conformance Requirements. If "A specification..." were pre-pended to each one, then they would indeed be completely independent and standalone. Why conjoin these into a single test assertion? This comment applies to several other CR/TA sets (although the CRs are not always clearly separated in SpecGL, as in this case). CP3.2 ----- Issue -- cross-dependence of this CP on the results of another CP, "@@each identified CoP@@". Could be replaced by "each CoP for which the specification defines conformance requirements". Should that be done? CP3.4 ----- 1.) Issue (trivial) -- "any" or "all"? 2.) Issue -- Is anything lost by omitting any mention of the 6 bullets in the TA? (I'm unsure.) If "no" then what does their presence in the ConfReqs mean? CP4.3 ----- Issue (trivial) -- to "each of the other DoV" add "used by the specification" (we discussed this before). CP4.5 ----- Issue -- in the TA (as opposed to the ConfReqs), is the "...not applicable" sentence needed, given the presence of the "If..." clause? I think we discussed this, but I'm unsure of our conclusion. Out of time, -Lofton.
Received on Monday, 22 December 2003 10:58:26 UTC