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

Definition of feature, interoperable and implementation

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 20:21:29 -0500
Message-Id: <d7bd6cd91e2f42f021840ccc52ffbd25@w3.org>
To: 'www-qa-wg@w3.org' <www-qa-wg@w3.org>

there's a work going on the CDF Mailing List to define three terms:
	- feature,
	- interoperable
	- implementation

Abstract of my research
- feature
	QA SpecGL: 120 - not defined
	Process:    12 - not defined
- interoperable, interoperability
	QA SpecGL:  30 - not defined
	Process:     5 - not defined
- implementation
	QA SpecGL:  95 - defined
	Process:    34 - not defined

[Member only]

I will ask if it's possible to share it on www-qa@w3.org mailing list  
for the benefits of a wider community.

Here follows, the use of features in the Process document, It's never  
defined what a feature is even if it has a lot of implications in the  

In 7.4.3 Call for Implementations

In the Call for Implementations, the Working Group MAY identify  
specific features of the technical report as being "features at risk."  
General statements such as "We plan to remove any unimplemented  
feature" are not acceptable; the Working Group MUST precisely identify  
any features at risk. Thus, in response to a Call for Implementations,  
reviewers can indicate whether they would formally object to the  
removal of the identified features.

After gathering implementation experience, the Working Group MAY remove  
features from the technical report that were identified as being "at  
risk" and request that the Director Call for Review of a Proposed  
Recommendation. If the Working Group makes other substantive changes to  
the technical report, the Director MUST return it to the Working Group  
for further work.
]]]- http://www.w3.org/2004/02/Process-20040205/process

In 7.4.4 Call for Review of a Proposed Recommendation

2. Shown that each feature of the technical report has been  
implemented. Preferably, the Working Group SHOULD be able to  
demonstrate two interoperable implementations of each feature. If the  
Director believes that immediate Advisory Committee review is critical  
to the success of a technical report, the Director MAY accept to Call  
for Review of a Proposed Recommendation even without adequate  
implementation experience;
]]]- http://www.w3.org/2004/02/Process-20040205/process

In 7.4.6 Returning a Document to a Working Group for Further Work

	1.  	The Working Group makes substantive changes to the technical  
report at any time after a Last Call announcement and prior to  
Publication as a Recommendation, except when the changes involve the  
removal of features at risk identified in a Call for Implementations.  
In the case of substantive changes, the Working Group MUST republish  
the technical report as a Working Draft.
]]]- http://www.w3.org/2004/02/Process-20040205/process

In 7.6.2 Classes of Changes to a Recommendation

3. Corrections that MAY affect conformance, but add no new features
]]]- http://www.w3.org/2004/02/Process-20040205/process

4. New features
For new features, W3C follows the full process of advancing a technical  
report to Recommendation.
]]]- http://www.w3.org/2004/02/Process-20040205/process

To be fully honest, we use _120 times_ "feature" in the QA  
Specification Guidelines without defining it.

We define in the glossary
* Deprecated feature
  	An existing feature that has become outdated  and is in the process  
of being phased out,  usually in favor of a specified replacement.  
Deprecated features are no longer recommended  for use and may cease to  
exist in future  versions of the specification.
* Obsolete feature
	An existing or deprecated feature has ceased to  exist and that is  
listed for historical purpose.
* Module
	A collection of semantically-related features that represents a unit  
of functionality.
]]] - http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-qaframe-spec-20041122/#glossary

We define Implementation
34 times in Process document
95 times in QA Specification Guidelines.

but we don't define interoperability. We use the terms  
interoperability, interoperable, etc. about 30 times. Process document  
is using it 5 times

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

Received on Tuesday, 15 March 2005 01:22:17 UTC

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