- From: Dominique Hazaël-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 16:48:33 +0100
- To: richard.t.kennedy@boeing.com
- Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
- Message-Id: <1107791313.5527.74.camel@stratustier>
Hi Richard, Le lundi 07 février 2005 à 06:42 +0000, richard.t.kennedy@boeing.com a écrit : > They may be reading much more into the definition of the term “class†> than was intended by the QA WG. Many programming disciplines have formal > definitions of classes. My reading of the definition of “Class of > Products†in the glossary strikes me as a non-technical (i.e., informal) > use of the term class. > > So their objection might be satisfied by redefining “Class of Products†> as the “generic name for the group of products or services to which it > has > been determined the specification applies, (i.e., target of the > specification). A specification may identify several classes of > products.†This change does indeed clarify what we mean by classes of products; I support its inclusion in the Spec. I'd rather not change the terminology "class of product" at this point, since we've been advertising it quite a bit in the past years and seems pretty good to me (maybe "class of implementations" would have been a better choice back then, but I still think we should avoid changing the terminology now). With regard to amending the "deprecated features" wrt classes of products, I hope we can keep it as is, since I think the current form is more useful than the one without references to classes of product; I guess we'll know better when we get back to the XML Core WG with this proposal. Thanks! Dom -- Dominique Hazaël-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/ W3C/ERCIM mailto:dom@w3.org
Received on Monday, 7 February 2005 15:48:34 UTC