follow-up discussions on Boston F2F, 4 Friday 2005 AM

Le lundi 14 mars 2005 à 08:06 -0700, Lofton Henderson a écrit :
> >Unless you make a specific proposal, I'd rather keep it as is; while
> >it's not 100% accurate,
>
> Concrete proposal #1:  Don't include attribution.

The WG already rejected that one :)

> Alternative proposal:  Give Lofton an AI to redraft the story.

I'm happy for you to take that action item :)

> >I think that our decision to proceed as we
> >decided to should have been reconsidered if we had done the type of
> >quality review we're suggesting.
> 
> This is the part that I dispute.  Perhaps I remember it from a different 
> perspective.  But it was a quite conscious decision to do it this way.  We 
> discussed it and everyone agree -- no one dissented.  It was not an oversight.

I don't disagree on the conscious aspect of it; but again, I think that
we had done the kind of reviews we're suggesting - and that others did
for us -, we would have realized this wasn't a good decision - as we did
later.

> >It was decided to make it normative since we decided to require specGL
> >implementors to fill it up to claim conformance to SpecGL.
> 
> I don't think it is normative.  It does not fit our definition of 
> normative, "prescriptive or containing conformance requirements".

Well, I think is becomes prescriptive once you start requiring it to
claim conformance; but feel free to ask the Chair to re-open the issue.

(my gut feeling with normative vs informative is: if it's normative, you
can't remove it from the spec without changing the way you conform to
it; in this case, removing the ICS would change the way you conform to
SpecGL)

> (Btw, "normative" has disappeared from SpecGL Glossary, from the 
> "all-inclusive QA Glossary", etc.  When did that happen (LC?)?  Given the 
> amount of time we spent arguing the definition, around Last Calll time, it 
> would seem useful to keep the resolved definition in the Glossary.

Agreed; could you raise a separate issue about this so we don't lose
track of it. 

> > > As defined Thursday (Boston), isn't the ICS an (unsubstantiated) claim of
> > > spec authors' intent to conform to SpecGL?
> >
> >... until it is required to claim conformance.
> 
> It is still unsubstantiated and unsupported (according to Boston) -- it is 
> simply a tool for making a claim.

You don't distinguish nature and function; in its nature, an ICS is only
a tool; but when you require someone to use the tool, it does become (in
its function) a substantive part.

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