- From: Dominique Hazaël-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
- Date: 12 Aug 2002 14:58:31 +0200
- To: www-qa@w3.org
The current editor draft of the spec GL says: "Atomicity of modules within profiles represents a clean design, and a reflects that the modularization has been well tailored to the goal of building profiles from modules" http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2002/08/qaframe-spec-0804.html#Gd-group-requirements-modules This is said in the general verbiage of the GL about modules. I wonder if this should not be a checkpoint instead since it does bring a judgment on the design of modules. The broader question behind that would be: should profiles use subset of modules? As the verbiage mentions it, some do (SVG is mentioned, CSS3 seems to follow the same road [1]), some don't (XHTML, SMIL 20). Interestingly enough, those which don't, define profiling rules to enforce this rule for externally defined profiles. 3 questions: - should modules be atomic by design? [ I assume that a "yes" implies adding a new checkpoint] - do CSS3 and SVG envision the possibility of non W3C defined profiles? [this might explain the lack of rules to define the said profiles] - should we say that if the creation of profiles is open (ie non W3C restricted), there should be rules for these profiles and that one of this rule should be atomicity of modules? This is of course for sake of interoperability. Dom 1. see http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-background/#profiling for instance -- Dominique Hazaël-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/ W3C/INRIA mailto:dom@w3.org
Received on Monday, 12 August 2002 08:58:35 UTC