Re: [SpecGL Draft] D1: Indicate which subdivisions are mandatory

Le 20 juil. 2004, à 15:42, Lynne Rosenthal a écrit :
>  Principle: Indicate which subdivisions are mandatory for conformance
>  Why care?
>  Subdividing the technology affects and can complicated conformance 
> with all the

	s/complicated/complicate/

> various combination of choices it provides  (a Chinese menu syndrome  
> 1 from column A, 2 from column B and desert is included).

	It made me laugh but I'm not sure it will be appropriate. I can still 
ask chinese persons what do they fill about it. I'm trying to think 
about another analogy.

>  Related

Conformance Principles/Practices of SpecGL

>  Techniques
>  Consider the following conditions:
> ·       atomicity of the subdivisions

	Create a graph of all subdivisions to show their atomicity

> ·       any mandatory subdivisions

	Label in this graph the ones which are mandatory

> ·       dependencies among subdivisions: e.g., modules that require 
> and build on functionally related modules, modules that require 
> modules from other functional areas

	Show the dependencies among subdivisions, explicit the relationships, 
e.g., modules that require and build on functionally related modules, 
modules that require modules from other functional areas


> ·       constraints against combined occurrence of particular pairs of 
> modules

	Create a list of the constraints against....

> ·       other conditions or constraints beyond these.

	Show all other conditions...

Question: When all of these techniques have been done, how the good 
practice "Indicate which subdivisions are mandatory for conformance" is 
achieved?
	A list of only mandatory subdivisions
	A keyword ala "Required for Conformance" of Profile "X" in each 
subdivision?

For example in SpecGL Lite, how will we express the dependencies of 
this D1 module and how does it impact the conformance section.


>  Examples: 
>  Content can be required to conform to one of the subdivisions (e.g., 
> profiles)  or it may be conformant to the specification independently 
> of a subdivision.  The question arises for a producer (of content): is 
> it conforming if it generates content that is otherwise valid but does 
> not conform to the subdivision.

	Did you think about something in particular?

>  SMIL 2.0 has a SMILO 2.0 Language Profile for user agents but also 
> provides a

	s/SMILO/SMIL/




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