SpecGL implementation report, first version


Here is the first version of the SpecGL implementation report.

If you don't have the time to read through the entire document before  
the teleconference, at least read the short Overview given immediately  

-- Start Overview --
The new implementation report is very similar to the older one [1],  
given that the Req's/GP's are fewer in the newer document (13/23 as  
opposed to 13/25) and no radically new Req's/GP's have been added (most  
are reworded). Coherence has been checked between the two  
implementation reports. Instead of listing the specifications in one  
table, separate tables have been given for each specification checked.
A new numbering scheme gives a clear overview of the Specifications  
covered (SpecGL, Ruby, CSS 2.1, HTML 4.0.1, SISR, xml:id and SVG 1.1),  
following the ICS for SpecGL [2]. I suggest we use this as a normative  
format for SpecGL ICS, as it stays close to the document outline and is  
very easy to read.
Some implementation reports, notably CSS, need to be further digested.  
Also, more specifications will be added (suggestions from QA WG  
On a side note, some editorial remarks on SpecGL have been made,  
inlined below.
-- End Overview --

The report covers all of the specifications in the previous  
implementation report [1] as well as SpecGL itself, but except for  
XInclude, where I've read the specs using the ICS that Dom sent out a  
few days ago [2]. This table is used in the document itself, for each  
specification covered. Content is a merge of Dom's SpecGL ICS, Tim's  
CSS review [3], Karl's implementation report of xml:id [4], the SISR  
Conformance assessment [5] and my own findings.

If a WG member feels a particular specification should be reviewed,  
please suggest say 2 more specs (however please bear in mind that this  
is heavy work; allow a couple of days for each spec). Also, editorial  
changes (links etc) are to be provided. Content should stay the same.

Karl, Dom, I took the liberty of merging your stylesheets and do some  
small changes in order to provide the correct background in the table  
cells. Feel free to change as necessary to further enhance readability.  
You may, for example, want to make the cell widths uniform.

A few editorial remarks for SpecGL, Editor Draft 2005/04/21 [6]:

TOC, entry for GP15, reads "... Practice 15:Use optional ...", should  
read "... Practice 15: Use optional ..."
1.5.1, 2nd section, reads "... must ensures ...", should read "... must  
ensure ..."
2.2.3, 1st section, reads "... to clearly defines ...", should read  
"... to clearly define ..."
2.3.1, "why care?" section, reads "... other natural languages ...",  
should read "... other natural language ..."
2.4, 2nd section, reads "... will also benefits ...", should read "...  
will also benefit ..."
2.4.1, after Requirement 09, section "Why Care?", reads "... the  
various combination ...", should read "... the various combinations  
2.4.3, section "What does it mean?", reads "... are consistent.This  
...", should read "... are consistent. This ..."
2.4.4, section "What does it mean?", reads "... define the affect ...",  
should read "... define the effect ..."
References - Informative references; WIKI-NORMATIVE-REF, reads "...  
esw.w3.org ...", should read "... http://esw.w3.org ..."

Feedback and comments welcome.

Thanks and best,


[1] http://www.w3.org/QA/2004/12/reports-list-table
[2] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2005/04/specgl-specgl-ics.html
[4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-id/2004Dec/0009
[5] http://www.w3.org/2004/12/cmn-si-review
[6] http://www.w3.org/QA/Group/2005/02/qaframe-spec/

Received on Monday, 25 April 2005 07:57:02 UTC