- From: <david_marston@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 11:28:18 -0400
- To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
DM> Levels: > +---------+ > | | > | Level 3 | > | | > +---------+ > | | > | Level 2 | > | | > +---------+ > | | > | Level 1 | > | | > +---------+ KD>Do you mean that: 1st = Level 1 2nd = Level 1 + 2 3rd = Level 1 + 2 + 3 ===> the case of WCAG for example. Yes, that's what I mean. I'm only proposing that it be a separate drawing, because modules can have levels and other complications can arise. Following the precedent of thousands of "software stack" diagrams over the decades, I put the most fundamental technology on the bottom. DM> Modules: > > +----------+----------+----------+ > | Module A | Module B | Module C | > +----------+----------+----------+------------+ > | Core Module - required for all | > +---------------------------------------------+ > This drawing deliberately shows a notch at the top to indicate that > implementing just the core is conformant. KD>Which is the same that I have done in my drawing in the sense. you can >for example in the conformance section that what I have called Module A >is the core module and it's fine. Your drawing just above expresses >conformance rules, not technology division. I disagree with that last part. It expresses technology division by saying, graphically, that you must implement the core because all the other modules are on top of it. Implementing Module A does not obligate you to implement Module B because the two are beside each other at the same level. Thus, the Core is a division that has a different role because it's mandatory. Any of the Modules A, B, C are allowed to assume that the Core capabilities will be available to them. In summary: vertical positioning indicates dependence, horizontal indicates independence. In the later examples Karl and I traded about modules and levels together, we were drawing different relationships. I'll leave that for the individual WGs to debate, because I would prefer that an optional module not have levels within itself, but it could happen. .................David Marston
Received on Thursday, 19 August 2004 15:28:52 UTC