- From: Dominique Hazaël-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 17:12:14 +0200
- To: karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
- Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
- Message-Id: <1094742303.5545.240.camel@stratustier>
Le jeu 09/09/2004 à 00:54, karl Dubost a écrit : > Depending on the class of product, you can implement every guidelines > or not. For the ICS 34 to ICS 37, you can only reply if you are part of > the WG which designing the specification. The idea of doing profiles for SpecGL is interesting, but it may be an overkill considering that we wanted to keep our conformance model as simple as possible. Also, I think this in fact shows a problem that we had tried to solve in the previous SpecGL but has resurfaced: our conformance requirements (that is, the principles, but also probably the good practices) should always refer to an end result, and not to an action. Since we're using imperatives conf req in specLite (which I think is good), it's easy to get confused about this, but typically: "Identify who or what will implement the specification" can easily be mapped into a particular end result in a spec (a list of classes of products) while "do a systematic and thorough review" can't. I think it may be more consistent to "simply" downgrade the ones that are not about end results into non-conformance requirements texts. Dom -- Dominique Hazaël-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/ W3C/ERCIM mailto:dom@w3.org
Received on Thursday, 9 September 2004 15:12:16 UTC