Re: [SpecGL Draft] E. Principle: Do Quality Control during the specification development

Le 02 juil. 2004, à 09:19, Lofton Henderson a écrit :
> Like you,  I can live with either one.
> My main point (which I didn't make clear), is that TAs are missing 
> altogether now, and need to be incorporated somehow.
>>>> Why should I care?
>>>>         Publishing a specification with incomplete section is very 
>>>> damaging at many levels :
>>>>

Exactly the demonstration of what I was writing ;). "Do quality 
control" is not finished :) I have sent only the Principle, all the 
good practices have to come. Testable assertions will be part of them.

* SpecGL: I do not agree with Dom, incomplete, as we did in the past, 
is not good at all. People are confused and don't know what to do. But 
as I said if you really want to do it, say that the section is 
incomplete.
* XHTML 2.0 WD is another example where the WG has been bashed because 
of parts too incomplete.

  btw, Talking about a testable assertion/test suite, the more I'm 
writing the techniques under each section, the more it looks like a 
Test Suite for SpecGL itself. That's really cool.


Thank you for all your comments. I will reply with more details Monday. 
It seems a good topic for an Agenda item for the next teleconf in 10 
days.


-- 
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager
*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***