- From: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
- Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 09:36:34 -0700 (MST)
- To: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@dyomedea.com>
- cc: www-qa@w3.org
On 30 Oct 2002, Eric van der Vlist wrote:
> Yes, that's what I meant saying that unique identifiers would be
> given to these public interfaces. It would become much easier to
> evaluate the impact of changing one them.
Any normative piece of a spec is a public interface. Unique (within a
spec) identifiers should be given to sufficiently large or important
normative pieces of a spec. It should be up to the authors to decide
what is "sufficiently large or important". I hope SpecGL already has a
general requirement for labeling normative pieces. If SpecGL does not,
it must be added.
It would be desirable for identical concepts in two specs (e.g., two
versions of a spec) to have identical identifiers, but we should not
require that. I think we already agreed that normative pieces should
be "easy to find" in a spec. That's sufficient. It is impossible to
automate backward compatibility verification process anyway.
I see no need to introduce a new concept of "public interface" or a
new "public interface registry". Your examples do not show [me] how
these new things will help or even how they would make any difference.
Alex.
--
| HTTP performance - Web Polygraph benchmark
www.measurement-factory.com | HTTP compliance+ - Co-Advisor test suite
| all of the above - PolyBox appliance
Received on Wednesday, 30 October 2002 11:36:40 UTC