- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2005 18:53:47 -0700
- To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
While getting ready for my own review, I did some spot checking of other reviews. While I haven't looked at much of them very carefully, this bit caught my attention -- I have a problem with this Requirement (2.2.A) of SpecGL. Karl writes that xml:id satisfies it... >2.2.A: Identify who or what will implement the specification. >http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-qaframe-spec-20041122/#implement-principle >YES/NO/Not Applicable: Explain why? > YES > http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-xml-id-20041109/#intro > In the introduction explain that the xml:id specification gives a >uniform mechanism for XML processors and XML document to create >identifiers for XML Schema and DTD. This Requirement derived from the earlier Checkpoint about "identify Classes of Product". CoP were items for which the specification defines conformance requirements. I can't see how the referenced text in xml-id satisfies a requirement to identify classes of product. This Introduction text only contains some vague generalizations about what xml:id is for. If it was our intent, in our attempt to avoid scary technical jargon, that xml:id passes the successor Requirement (2.2.A) to the original CoP requirement, then I think we have gone too far. IMO, what the referenced #intro text in xml:id says about conformance and Classes of Product is relatively worthless, and fairly obscure as well. If it is our intent that xml:id passes that SpecGL requirement, then I think we have made the requirement much too wishy-washy (in other words, it is relatively worthless, IMO). Regards, -Lofton. At 09:36 AM 12/9/2004 -0500, Karl Dubost wrote: >Hi, > >I have done a review [1] of xml:id Last Call [2] specification with the >Text ICS template [3] of SpecGL version Nov 22, 2004 > >We may have one candidate that would please Mark Skall. > >I will quote my message to the XML WG >[[[ >The Good News: > xml:id is almost conformant to QA SpecGL LC version Nov 22, 2004 > if you modify the specification for > - 3.2.B "Indicate which conformance requirements > are mandatory, which are recommended and > which are optional." > - 4.3.A "Address Extensibility" > > which are both really easy to meet. It's just a question of wording. >]]] - [1] > > >[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-id/2004Dec/0009 >[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-xml-id-20041109/ >[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2004Dec/0008 >[4] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-qaframe-spec-20041122/ > >-- >Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/ >W3C Conformance Manager >*** Be Strict To Be Cool *** > >
Received on Monday, 3 January 2005 01:53:55 UTC