[SpecGL Draft] B1 Define the Scope

B. Getting Focus
The path to a quality specification begins with its scope.  It is critical 
to convey what the specification is about by describing its intent and 
applicability.  As the specification develops, it is a good idea to revisit 
the scope to make sure it still reflects the intent of the specification or 
if it needs to be modified.

Principle:  Define the scope.

What does it mean?
Describe what the specification is about.  Let the reader know what is 
covered in the specification.

Why Care?
It helps to keep the specification content focused.  It also will help 
readers know the limits or boundaries of the specification and whether it 
is of interest to them.

Techniques.
Include a scope section in the beginning of the document.  Tag it as a 
heading <tag>Scope</tag>

In addition to describing the subject of the specification, address the 
following to achieve a more complete scope:
    * Applicability of the specification,
    * Purpose, objectives, and goals,
    * Types of products or services (i.e., classes of products) to which 
the specification applies,
    * Relationship to other specifications or technologies,
    * What is not in scope, i.e., what the specification is not about,
    * Limitations on the application of the specification.
Note that it is not necessary to write a separate statement for each of 
these items, rather, they can be combined.

Examples.
Need examples of good and bad scopes.
Looks like many Rec’s don’t have Scope statements in the body of the Rec, 
but includes the information as part of the Abstract.

Good:  (probably are many good examples)
SVG 1.1, About 
SVG 
(<http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/intro.html>http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/intro.html)
CC/PP Structure and Vocabulary, section 1.1 Scope and Normative Elements.
  <http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-CCPP-struct-vocab-20040115/#ScopeOfDocument>http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-CCPP-struct-vocab-20040115/#ScopeOfDocument


Bad (but we shouldn’t say bad, when mentioning a Rec)
MathML 2.0 – Introduction, although very extensive and complete, doesn’t 
give a quick view of what MathML is about.  The Abstract is much better at 
providing a concise description of what the Rec is about.

Web Content Accessibility 1.0 
<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/>http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/ also has 
extensive and complete Introduction, but no scope.  The Abstract provides a 
very direct statement of what the Guideline is about.


--Lynne