Karl How about something like this.... (I took it from the old SpecGL) As a general principle, variability complicates interoperability. In theory, interoperability is best when there are numerous identical, complete, correct implementations. However, in practice, the net effect of conformance variability is not necessarily negative in all cases, when compared to the alternatives. Different sorts of variability have different negative and positive impacts. The principal danger is "excessive" variability - variability which goes beyond that needed for a positive interoperability trade-off, and which unnecessarily complicates the conformance landscape. Specification writers need to carefully consider and justify any conformance variability allowed, making sure it aligns with project requirements, use cases and the technology. --Lynne At 04:11 PM 8/25/2004, Karl Dubost wrote: >Dom, > >http://www.w3.org/QA/Group/2004/07/WD-qaframe-spec/#subdivide > >the introductory prose for Managing Variability is missing. I though like >you have edited VIS, that you may be able to give a paragraph from your >VIS text. > >What do you think? > > > >-- >Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/ >W3C Conformance Manager >*** Be Strict To Be Cool *** > >
Received on Wednesday, 25 August 2004 23:18:25 UTC