W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > December 2004

Re: versioning at the Tech Plenary

From: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 09:02:13 -0500
Message-Id: <>
To: <david_marston@us.ibm.com>, <www-qa-wg@w3.org>
Addressing versioning seems to be a very good, next topic for the QAWG, if 
(1) it isn't being addressed by the TAG or another group (2) the QAWG 
continues to operate and (3) there is indication that this is a topic that 
people want the QAWG to address.  An indication for (3) would be tied into 
the response we get on our current SpecGL document. If people embrace 
SpecGL and we don't have to struggle to get people to review and use it, 
then that indicates to me, that our documents are useful and perhaps we 
should think about topics for a Version 2 SpecGL - then we may have our own 
versioning problem.

--happy, happy holidays

At 12:07 PM 12/19/2004, david_marston@us.ibm.com wrote:

>KD>We address the topic of extension in SpecGL but we don't address
>KD>Should we?
>I've said this before, but now that other issues have been resolved
>or at least been placed in a context, I can highlight aspects of the
>context that would help to answer this question.
>A. Up to now, SpecGL has been about best practices for writing a
>    single document (spec) for a single version, presumably because we
>    want to be able to measure the conformance of a single document.
>B. Nonetheless, SpecGL suggests how the one document must relate to
>    others: normative dependencies on other specs, deprecation as a
>    way to transition from a prior version.
>C. The recent debate about whether the spec needs to say something
>    about unused DoV, to record the fact that the WG thought about all
>    of them, would presumably apply to versions as well. We all agree
>    that the WG should consider all the DoV, we just disagree about
>    what form of statement will best satisfy the stakeholders. When it
>    comes to versions, I don't think the WG would engage in all the
>    work needed to define a new version unless there is a large body
>    of unfinished business or new technology that has an impact, so
>    the WG will certainly have thought about the differences from the
>    prior version.
>Surprisingly or not, KD's question breaks down into two:
>1. What should a spec for version >1.0 say about its difference from
>prior versions? This could be an area where SpecGL overlaps with
>PubRules and/or the Manual of Style. SpecGL touches on this area
>only with respect to deprecation.
>2. What should any spec say about future versions? This is the area
>of overlap with TAG.
>My answer to (2) is that if the WG defines anything that is placed
>in the spec to provide for future versions, they should elaborate on
>that feature and its reasons. If SpecGL discusses best practices for
>addressing future versions, it might give more guidance about what
>such elaboration ought to convey to posterity.
>.................David Marston
Received on Tuesday, 21 December 2004 14:01:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:43:38 UTC