- From: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 19:01:12 -0500
- To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
I have no problem removing the sentence related to "No discretion is granted to implementer...". In fact, I would like to remove it and agree with Lofton's recollection of the Seattle meeting. lynne At 04:59 PM 1/16/2003 -0700, Lofton Henderson wrote: >Before I look at the details of the subsequent comments of Mark and David, >I have one suggestion (see end)... > >At 03:11 PM 1/16/03 -0500, you wrote: >>Below completes my action item to review Guideline 3 and 9 with respect >>to Strict Conformance and to proposed modifications. >> >>For Guideline 3. Specify conformance policy >> >>1. Modify 1st paragraph, (changes start with the second sentence) >>A look at various W3C Technical reports shows that the term "conformance" >>is often qualified, resulting in more than one type of conformance. It >>is important to convey an understanding of what is meant by conformance >>and how it applies to each class of product as well as each dimension of >>variability (e.g., modules) if applicable. For example, if the >>specification defines behavior for more than one class of product, there >>may be a separate conformance policy for each class. Similarly, if the >>specification defines modules, there may be a different conformance >>policy for each module. >> >>2. Delete the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th paragraphs. >> >>3. The 5th paragraph the definition of Strict conformance is moved to >>Guideline 9 (see below). >> >>4. Leave the last 2 paragraphs (6 and 7) as is. >> >>5. Remove Checkpoint 3.2. It is subsumed by ckpt 9.1. >> >>6. Checkpoint 3.3 should be removed >> >>7. Ckpt 3.1 (I wasn't sure what is meant here, but with Mark's help, I >>thought that this was it) >>Propose alternative wording for the fulfill criteria of Ckpt 3.1 >>To fulfill this checkpoint, a specification MUST include a normative >>section enumerating the minimal requirements that apply across all >>products of a class. >> >>Rationale: the reader must be able to recognize any minimum >>functionality, complexity or support that applies to all conforming >>products of a specific class. >> >>For Guideline 9. Extensions or NOT. >> >>8. Insert the following as the 3rd paragraph in Guideline 9 >>Disallowing extensions for any part of the specification is called strict >>conformance. [te paragraph from G3] Strict conformance is defined as >>conformance of an implementation that employs only the requirements >>and/or functionality defined in the specification and no more (e.g., no >>extensions to the specification are implemented). No discretion is >>granted to implementers, and any requirements for handling deprecated >>features must be followed. > >"No discretion is granted to implementers," is a bad choice of words. As >I recall from Seattle (Tues PM), strict conformance applies only to >functional extensions. I thought that we discussed, and decided, that >discretionary items are allowed under strict conformance. In which case, >indeed there is discretion granted to implementers. Some of us thought >the term "strict conformance" was misleading, if it in fact allows several >bits of variability like discretion, extended capability of standard >functions, etc. However, I (at least) accepted that this was a legacy >definition (from NIST?), and withdrew my objections. > >Unfortunately, this "discretion" detail is not documented in the draft >minutes. However, from the following excerpt from later in this thread, >it sounds like Mark remembers the same. > >>At 04:21 PM 1/16/2003 -0500, David Marston/Cambridge/IBM wrote: >> >>The major dilemma we had was as follows: >>A product could vary along some Dimensions of Variability, notably >>discretionary choices, but not implement any extensions. Is this >>"strict conformance"? >> >>[Mark's reply...] This is still "strict conformance." The term >>"conformance" has to do with implementing features exactly as allowed in >>the spec/rec. Thus, implementing the DOVs not having to do with >>extensions does not violate "strict conformance." I think our original >>definition of "strict conformance" bears this out. > >If all of this is an accurate remembrance (and if we do not further modify >this issue resolution), then ""No discretion is granted to implementers," >ought to be changed, as it is pretty misleading. > >(I may have more substantive comments, later, after I have digested the >MS/DM dialog.) > >-Lofton.
Received on Thursday, 16 January 2003 19:02:17 UTC