[draft] Proposed answer to TAG issue on SpecGL ICS

Original comment (bug 1158):
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005Mar/0014.html

The QA Working Group has completed a SpecGL ICS for SpecGL itself,
available at:
http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2005/04/specgl-specgl-ics.html

We believe SpecGL now conforms to itself, since it implements all the
Requirements; it also implements all but one Good Practice. Follow
belows details answers to the comments made in the footnotes of the ICS
the TAG filled for the previous version of SpecGL [1]

1) No link to Class of Products statement
We believe linking to the section including the statement is sufficient

2) ICS required for claiming conformance?
We have clarified that 
"if all the Requirements are checked on the ICS as being satisfied, then
conformance can be claimed as detailed below", linking to the
conformance claim section, which requires linking to a completed ICS.

3) Class of Product vs Scope
The scope is what is covered by the specification; the class of products
are part of defining the scope, but a more narrow (and in our opinion
important) aspect of it that directly affects conformance.

4) "Using the defined term conformance model..."
Done

5) Checking whether references have been reviewed carefully
The good practice has been reworded to be less workflow oriented

6) Positive statements for no subdivision
SpecGL clarifies now that a positive statement is indeed needed, and
indeed states that it is not subdivided.

7) No extensibility mechanism
We disagree that SpecGL doesn't define an extensibility mechansim. In
section 4.3 (Extensibility), we say that one can extend SpecGL as long
as it doesn't negate the requirements given in the specification. This
is a basic extensibility mechanism, and we don't think at this time
there is any need for a more complex one.

8) No deprecated features listed
SpecGL clarifies that making a positive statement about deprecated
features is only needed when there was a previous version of the
specification (which is not the case for SpecGL itself)

9) No obsolete features identified
 Same as 8

10) & 11) Hard to demonstrate some GP
The QA WG has moved the given GP into a separate informative section of
SpecGL, since they were indeed too workflow-oriented to fit with the
other Good Practices.

Dom

1.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005Mar/att-0014/qaframework-recursiveconformance.html
-- 
Dominique Hazaël-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/
W3C/ERCIM
mailto:dom@w3.org