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

Re: SpecGL LC16 and 39: CP5.4 (o.ld 8.4) Discretionary items

From: <david_marston@us.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2003 23:11:40 -0400
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFD9807FAA.38D20F43-ON85256D99.00102CF7-85256D99.00119519@lotus.com>

Lynne writes:
>1. [making the CP apply to consolidation of discretionary items]
>is not the original intent of the checkpoint (as I was the original
>author). The original intent was that I would get the same results,
>under the same conditions - e.g., if I choose an option, like 'large
>fonts', and view a page, then if I view another page or that same 
>page (after refresh), I would get the same 'large fonts'.

This CP definitely has a long, tortured history. My recent rewrite
was based on the last published version of 8.4, which was basically
Dom's wording trying to express the consolidation thought. He said
"factorize" but meant the same thing. The rewrite that you worked
from was the result of further interchange among me, Dom, and

I think we also need to say something about your interpretation,
that whatever choice is made by the implementation should be
deterministic. That will need an escape clause for the upcoming
full-text-search enhancement to XQuery, but is a good idea in
general. It's especially useful when an implementation is
capable of more than one behavior and offers the user a choice.

Nevertheless, the pressure to consolidate discretionary items
will have a very positive effect on interoperability. I don't know
why you disagree with applying such pressure. I think we should
have two checkpoints here.
.................David Marston
Received on Friday, 5 September 2003 23:12:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:43:34 UTC