Re: Action Item to Define Best Practice

Hi Mark,

While looking at our issues list and adding this mail as a follow-up to
one of the issues, I became confused as to what you really meant here...

Le jeudi 23 décembre 2004 à 10:17 -0500, Mark Skall a écrit :
> I was assigned an action item to define a best practice to address the 
> problem I identified during my review of XINCLUDE for conformance to 
> SpecGL.   The problem had to do with not knowing if various features, like 
> deprecated features, were present and thus not being able to determine if 
> the absence of the identification of these features, as required by SpecGL, 
> was non-conformance or non applicability.
> 
> After careful review, I decided that there was already a best practice that 
> solves this problem - it is the best practice for providing an ICS.
>
> The existing ICS best practice asks for implementations to indicate which 
> capabilities and optional features have been implemented.  In our telcon 
> discussion we agreed that this would be a possible solution to the problem 
> but that we would need some way to make the ICS accessible from the 
> spec.  However, the existing best practice specifically says that "This 
> Good Practice suggests that the specification itself include an ICS proforma."

Could you clarify what is the ICS you're referring to? The ICS for
implementations of the given spec, or the ICS of this spec with regard
to SpecGL? The best practice is about the former, while I think the ICS
we referred to during the teleconf was one a spec could deliver to show
it conformed to SpecGL. I may just be confused, though.

Another way to look at this is whether this is straightforward enough as
is or if it would deserve some additional text to SpecGL.

Thanks,

dom
-- 
Dominique Hazaël-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/
W3C/ERCIM
mailto:dom@w3.org