- From: Dominique Hazaël-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
- Date: 12 Aug 2002 15:46:47 +0200
- To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Cc: www-qa@w3.org
Le sam 10/08/2002 à 19:54, Lofton Henderson a écrit : > >This is especially true for profiles and levels which are usually > >defined in separate documents. > > > >Anyway, I think we need: > >- to clarify the meaning of the word specification in the introduction > >- adjust the GL accordingly. > > For your second dash-item, how about "specification's functionality" in > place of the appropriate occurrences of "specification"? Err... Do you mean technology's functionality? > Would something > that simple suffice? My suggestions would be to replace "specification" with "technology" in the 3 concerned GL. As an aside: - I wonder if the GL about levels brings anything useful, since levels don't really exert any influence on conformance or implementation. - I begin to wonder if we should try or not to specify a modularization framework that would allow to create modularized technologies more easily - it's rather interesting that all the modules and profiles based technologies are developed inside the Document Format [1] Domain. Maybe this should inspire us a relationship between these dimensions of variability and some product classes. Dom 1. http://www.w3.org/DF/ -- Dominique Hazaël-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/ W3C/INRIA mailto:dom@w3.org
Received on Monday, 12 August 2002 09:46:50 UTC