Re: Should SpecGL be a spec?

On Thu, 5 Sep 2002, Lofton Henderson wrote:

> I think we (QAWG and authors) agree completely, practice what we
> preach.  We are aware that this (2nd published) WD falls short in a
> number of ways.  You have pointed out a number of issues that fall
> in this category.  SpecGL will certainly be conforming by Last Call
> (anticipated:  1-Feb-2003) -- I can't imagine that we'd have the
> nerve to put out a document with our names on it otherwise!

Great!

> As an exercise, one of the QAWG members will be measuring SpecGL
> against itself.  This may happen against this draft, or against the
> next published draft (anticipated:  1-nov-2002), or both.

Measuring is good, though the result of such an exercise is already
known: SpecGL is not SpecGL-compliant, at any level.  To become
self-compliant, SpecGL would probably need to be restructured and
rewritten in a major way (IMO). I would recommend that the exercise is
given the highest (priority 1?) priority and that already-known core
issues are discussed before they are written up in the revised spec.

It should be possible, for example, to decide whether a huge DoV
section is needed before [re]writing that section. Similarly, it
should be possible to decide whether behavioral specs should be
covered before spending time on an exact scope wording. Same for
encouraging non-normative illustrations. Etc., etc.

Thank you,

Alex.

-- 
                            | HTTP performance - Web Polygraph benchmark
www.measurement-factory.com | HTTP compliance+ - Co-Advisor test suite
                            | all of the above - PolyBox appliance

Received on Thursday, 5 September 2002 14:10:04 UTC