Re: Should modules be divisible?

At 08:58 AM 2002-08-12, Dominique Hazaël-Massieux wrote:

>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.

This kind of motherhood should be expunged from the document.

The W3C lacks the organizational "capability maturity" after the
language of the CMU/SEI 'Capability Maturity Model' to ensure that
modules it ordains are uniformly fit to claim atomicity.  One can only
experiment with both atomic and subsettable premises in appropriate
contexts and make the groundrules as to what the terms of offer of
a module are.

Al


>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 10:07:15 UTC