Re: [SpecGL] C1: Define your terms, pcpl 2

Do we have a definition for conformance model?


>Principle: Create conformance designations for each part of the
>conformance model

s/designations/label
Since we use label and forms of conformance, lets stick to those terms.

>What does this mean?
>Most specifications define different forms of conformance,  e.g. a
>language often defines conformance for a parser and for a document.
>Associate well-defined labels to these forms of conformance (like a
><q>well-formed XML document</q>).
>
>Why care?
>Having a label associated to your conformance forms helps both in terms
>of interoperability, as implementors can better identify what types of
>implementation they have been developing, and in terms of branding,
>since having a unique way to refer to the conforming implementations
>makes it easier to publicize the specification behind them.

Suggested rewrite:
Having a label associated with each form of conformance helps 
interoperability, testing, and branding.  It gives implementers a way to 
identify and discuss their implementations and express the degree to which 
an implementation has met a  specific set of requirements in the 
conformance clause.  It gives test developers a meaningful set of 
requirements to develop tests for and for which conformance claims can be 
made against. It gives users a way to articulate their buyer requirements 
by having a unique way to refer to conforming implementations.


>Technique
>Review all the different forms of conformance in your specification
>(ideally, they should be listed in the conformance clause), and make
>sure they have an associated designation.

s/designation/label/

>Examples:
>- XML 1.O defines a well-formed XML document, a valid XML document
>- WCAG 1.0 defines a level A conformant document
>- SVG 1.1 defines "conforming svg document fragments", "conforming
>interpreters", "conforming viewers"

Received on Tuesday, 27 July 2004 18:49:21 UTC