- From: David Marston/Cambridge/IBM <david_marston@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 23:59:17 -0500
- To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
>- AR-015,AR-020(a) (limited technique of justification for DoV usage); >proposal: adopt the more generic approach... Agreed. Also, ensure that Ck 8.1 doesn't repeat 3.5. Under 3.5, we require that use of discretionary items (one or more) be justified in general. Guideline 8 checkpoints should refine: why this particular discretion grant, and why not tied in with others if it's not. >- AR-014 (other sources of definition for conformance terms) AR asked why the definitions in SpecGL are special. They probably are, but they could still be cited just as RFC2119 is cited. >- AR-022: we need a rationale for CP 8.3 Interaction with other DoV (e.g., discretion only applies if foo module is implemented) should be explained somewhere. Is this the CP that requires it? Also, verbiage may inadvertantly imply that only one choice may be implemented when that was not the intent. If multiple choices are allowed, it affects tailoring of the test suite. >- AR-023: need rationale and maybe rewording This is about Ck 8.4, viz.: > To fulfill this checkpoint, the specification MUST state that > given identical conditions, the effect of a discretionary choice is > consistent within a single implementation. There are some sub-goals here, each with a different rationale. First of all, discretionary choices should be consolidated up to the "design philosophy" level: developers should be choosing a policy rather than making micro-choices about whether situation A is an error but B is not. Also, the spec MUST address whether a choice is made by the implementer and compiled in (and the doc for the product specifies which choice was made), or the implementer is allowed to pass through the decision to the user. At some stage of setup, someone has to make the choice, else we wouldn't know which test case to apply. In particular, the end user should get errors in a predictable fashion, which (I think) is the aspect that the above verbiage addresses. >- AR-010 (GL 3 and 10 merging): ... >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? Well, GL3 lives on, so I think we said that GL10 is about writing down *all* the decisions made on GL1 to 9. GL3 is tested by looking for statements in the Conformance section that present the overall conformance policy and, where applicable, the policy for each class of product. Maybe the problem is that GL3 is no more desrving of a forward reference to the Conformance section than any other GL between 2 and 9. I think GL3 is also where specs like Infoset are required to say that their conformance assessment technique is indirect. .................David Marston
Received on Wednesday, 22 January 2003 00:01:21 UTC