Re: XML Core WG Last Call comments on QA Framework: Specification Guidelines

[...changing list to QAWG...]

Since I won't be able to participate in Wed telecon, in case this issue is 
discussed, I want to state my concern with the issue XML Core raises...

I'm a bit confused by the position taken by XML Core.  It is possible that 
they misunderstand what is class of product (CoP), and that the real 
problem here is that the Requirement is unclear.

(I had a problem with the CoP Requirement as well -- it was reasonably 
clear in previous SpecHeavy CR text, I thought.  But we have had debates on 
this list earlier, about whether various specs pass the new SpecLite 
version of the CoP requirement.  Which suggests that we have lost some 
clarity of the Requirement.)

Excerpting their comments...

>[...] We don't believe there are (or
>could be) clear definitions of distinct classes, and
>we are concerned that any attempt to list classes
>affected by a spec might end up excluding some products
>for which the spec should apply.
>
>Rather, any product should be evaluated against the
>spec to determine if the spec applies to it.

I have a big problem with those assertions as stated, especially the 
last.  How do you determine whether a spec applies to a product?  One way 
is to identify the CoP in the spec.  If not that, then how do you determine it?

With the CoP Requirement, we are asking specs to state clearly, what they 
are defining conformance requirements for.  I don't buy the argument (yet) 
that conformance targets can't be specified in advance, at least at some 
appropriate level of abstraction (which is what "class" of CoP is all about).

-Lofton.

At 05:13 PM 1/21/2005 -0500, Paul Grosso wrote:


>The XML Core WG reviewed:
>QA Framework: Specification Guidelines
>  http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-qaframe-spec-20041122/
>and has a concern about "classes of products."
>
>Specifically, the WG has a problem with:
>
>2.2 Requirement A: Identify who or what will implement
>the specification.
>
>and
>
>4.4 Requirement B: Define how deprecated feature is
>handled by each class of product.
>
>Our problem with the latter is just the "by each
>class of product" part which reduces to our issue
>with the former.
>
>We find 2.2 Requirement A to be unclear and potentially
>dangerous.  It is not clear how to define a class of
>product, and it is not clear what the full set of classes
>of products might be.  We don't believe there are (or
>could be) clear definitions of distinct classes, and
>we are concerned that any attempt to list classes
>affected by a spec might end up excluding some products
>for which the spec should apply.
>
>Rather, any product should be evaluated against the
>spec to determine if the spec applies to it.
>
>For example, it isn't clear if xml:id is applicable to
>an XHTML browser UA.  It depends on whether the UA
>relies on a parser of other xml processor that has
>implemented xml:id (in which case xml:id doesn't
>apply directly to the UA) or whether the UA does its
>own id recognition.
>
>In summary, we object to 2.2 Requirement A being mandatory
>in these Specification Guidelines.  We object to
>4.4 Requirement B being mandatory as long as it includes
>the words "by each class of product", but we remove our
>objection if those words are removed.
>
>Paul Grosso
>for the XML Core WG

Received on Tuesday, 25 January 2005 00:26:47 UTC