W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > January 2005

Re: SVG11 / SpecGL review assignment

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 15:37:52 -0500
Message-Id: <574F6FFA-5DC7-11D9-80CE-000A95718F82@w3.org>
To: 'www-qa-wg@w3.org' <www-qa-wg@w3.org>

Le 02 janv. 2005, à 14:40, Lofton Henderson a écrit :
> can't decide -- 2 -- (I am unable to decide the answer [y/n/na]  
> because of the way SVG11 modularizes, but leaves profile definition to  
> other specifications (e.g. Mobile11)).

Can't decide is often a Not Applicable.
With regards to the things you are mentioning later on in your review,  
it's again a case of technology versus document problem IMHO and it's  
really a tricky situation.

>> 4.1.B: If the technology is subdivided, then indicate which
>> subdivisions are mandatory for conformance.
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-qaframe-spec-20041122/#subdivide- 
>> mandatory-principle
>> YES/NO/Not Applicable: Explain why?
> Uncertain of answer.
> SVG11 defines a modularization of SVG,
> http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/intro.html#Modularization .
> But mandatory modules are not addressed, and the modularization is  
> defined for the use of other specifications, to write profiles:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/intro.html#Profiling
> In particular, the separate specification SVG Mobile 1.1 defines Tiny,  
> Basic, and Full profiles.  That not withstanding, "Full" mentioned in  
> the SVG11 Profiling sub-section, as being equivalent to all of SVG  
> (i.e., the union of all of the modules).
> So I'm uncertain how to answer the question as stated in SpecGL,  
> because of the partitioning of SVG11 and Mobile11.

which tends to prove that there is a difference between a specification  
(unique W3C document defined by the process document) and a technology  
which can be composed of many specifications.

Umbrella Specifications when not defined becomes then a problem to  
evaluate the quality of the defined technology.

> Note.  SpecGL says, "1.  Create a section in the specification  
> dedicated to extensibility; 2. Call it Extensions".  Why not "Call it  
> Extensibility?"  It seems silly to dedicate it to extensibility and  
> title it "Extensions".

I have no opinions, except that extensibility is not an english word...  
but well many of the words we are using at W3C do not exist in a  

> Some of the "can't tell" are because the GP is written as a process  
> requirement.  Therefore not ascertainable to an external reviewer.   
> (Since I have been involved with SVG, I could guess an answer as an  
> insider.  But ... if it's not reflected in the spec for all to see, I  
> put "can't tell").

can't tell = n/a, IMHO.
It's not possible for you to evaluate and then it's why they are not  
mandatory. SpecGl is not a tool for external reviewer but for people  
editing specifications.

Many many thanks for the review Lofton. I have kept track of all  
reviews so far in a file.

Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager
*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***

Received on Tuesday, 4 January 2005 04:07:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:43:38 UTC