W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > January 2003

Open issues on SpecGL (discussions topics for 2003/01/22 telecon)

From: Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Date: 21 Jan 2003 13:34:53 +0100
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
Cc: david_marston@us.ibm.com
Message-Id: <1043152494.19438.224.camel@stratustier>

From the list of Alex's comments [1], the following have been closed
during Seattle F2F and last week teleconf:
AR-001, -009, -012, -024, -025, -026
AR-013 disappears with CP3.3
AR-019 has been resolved with issue 104 (we keep it that way, noting
that it applies only to producers)

The following gets closed by the proposal of new GL1 by Lynne it is
AR-002, AR-003, AR-005, AR-008

Among the remaining open issues, here are my proposals (please send any
comments before the telecon, we'll go through them quickly):
- AR-006, which can be fixed by Lofton's proposal [2]: "one or more
examples of the functionality, concepts, and behaviors of the 
- AR-007 ("include or link" vs "document"); proposal: adopting it (I've
no strong feelings about one or the other)
- AR-011 (CP 3.1 usefulness and priority); proposal: keep Lynne's
rewording [3] "To fulfill this checkpoint, a specification MUST include
a normative section enumerating the minimal requirements that apply
across all products of a class.", lower the priority (2 or 3)
- AR-015,AR-020(a) (limited technique of justification for DoV usage);
proposal: adopt the more generic approach, move the examples in the
discussion part of the CP.
- AR-016, AR-017, AR-018, AR-020(b), AR-021, AR-027 (non-testability of
"all", "each","any"); proposal: adopting the wording that have been
floating around (don't remember where) to say "document foo" instead of
"identify all foo"; left to editors' discretion
- AR-028 (spelling) is left to editors' discretion

Those that need more discussion:
- AR-014 (other sources of definition for conformance terms):
* do we want to allow this? if yes, I propose the following wording:
"Conformance terms MUST be defined, either by reference or by including
the definition in the text", with some words on those defined by specGL
* if we don't, what's our rationale?
- AR-022: we need a rationale for CP 8.3
- AR-023: need rationale and maybe rewording
- AR-010 (GL 3 and 10 merging): this was discussed somewhat at Seattle,
but the minutes doesn't seem to show any results:
"Issue 102 : Scope and content of the "conformance policy" guideline
 DM: Discussion if the WG should write down about the decision of the WG
and not the spec itself.
 DH: The SpecGL is about spec not process of the WG.
 LH: G3 has changed a lot since, maybe it doesn't make sense anymore. I
will see the new draft of the G3 and will reopen it if necessary."
If someone has minuted a more abstract resolution, please let me know.
Otherwise, I think the issue boils down to: does it make sense in specGL
to differentiate the process of defining a policy with the way to put it
in the spec? What are the benefits of keeping those separate. It would
help a lot if David could either attend or send his answers to these

1. http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2003/01/AR-SpecGL-comments-1220.html
2. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003Jan/0090.html
3. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003Jan/0060.html
Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/

Received on Tuesday, 21 January 2003 07:34:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:43:32 UTC