- From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 08:09:47 +0900
- To: 'www-qa-wg@w3.org' <www-qa-wg@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <2DBD807C-01EC-11D9-BBA0-000A95718F82@w3.org>
Still during my review of Mobile SVG Profile against QA Framework: Specification Guidelines, W3C Working Draft 30 August 2004 http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-qaframe-spec-20040830/ I-2004-09-09-02: Evaluating a part of a technology. Mobile SVG Profile is a profile which is limiting the use of SVG for the benefits of Mobile devices. At first sight it's a bit strange to use QA Framework: Specification Guidelines to review a portion, a part of a technology. I have been able to do it because I know well the QA Framework and its implication on the design of a technology. Now imagine you are not part of the QA WG, and you are part of the SVG WG. You have an action item to make SVG Mobile Profile compliant to Spec GL. The first reaction of many persons in WG will say something on the line: "It doesn't make sense". I understand them it's a bit tricky. In Spec GL, we are mentioning the fact of dividing a spec, to think about the conformance model after identifying dimension of variability. But in this case, we are the micro-level of one of the dimension of variability. So if we don't want to have the Specification GL rejected on this basis. We have to be careful to include "Use cases" on the line of: Story: You are reviewing a profile. This is what you should do.... blablabla Story: You are reviewing a module. This is what you should do.... blablabla ... So when someone is reviewing a particular kind of document, he/she will not give up right away. It will also help to define the dependencies in review, as in "You are reviewing a profile, you should check if the core technology has been reviewed for this and that." -- Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/ W3C Conformance Manager *** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Wednesday, 8 September 2004 23:09:49 UTC