- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 16:25:00 -0600
- To: Dominique Hazaël-Massieux <dom@w3.org>, David Marston/Cambridge/IBM <david_marston@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: www-qa@w3.org
At 04:08 PM 8/12/02 +0200, Dominique Hazaël-Massieux wrote: >I think it would be worth clarifying the following points on the list of >categories for specification [1]: >- the categorization mechanism is not described: it would be good to say >from where this categorization comes. It's probably as simple as "what >the specification describes" Done. >- the 4th bullet "processors" doesn't answer the same question as the >other bullets: XSLT doesn't specify a "processor", but a processing >language. I would say too that the 2nd bullet would be clearer with I'd like David's feedback on this suggestion. >"content/data formatting" Is "formatting" the right word? For example, SVG 1.0 says "features and syntax". Since so much of the SVG specification is concerned with specifying associated graphical graphical meaning (presentation) of the SVG elements, "syntax and semantics" is a commonly heard catch-all. >Another good thing would be to provide a table with the current W3C >Recommendations and the categories where they fit [not in the framework, >but as a companion document in /QA/ space for instance]. I agree that it ought to be a companion, in /QA/. I could see endless arguments about the categorizations. IMO, the exact categorization scheme that we settle on (or accuracy of its application to W3C) is not the main point. The main point is that specifications be self-reflective about what they are defining. This is a way to do it. -Lofton.
Received on Monday, 12 August 2002 19:26:27 UTC