- From: David Marston/Cambridge/IBM <david_marston@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 16:08:00 -0400
- To: www-qa@w3.org
Alex wrote: >IMO, you cannot come up with something significantly more >"quantifiable, measurable, or verifiable" than a simple SHOULD. You >are just increasing the level of complexity without covering any new >ground. In fact, you are losing ground because you do not >(and cannot) predict all DoV that will exist! I think the SpecGL can and does enumerate all the dimensions of variability that WGs are allowed to use. It requires the spec to convey the outcomes of explicit WG decisions on each one. In turn, that means that the WG had to consider whatever variability they intend to allow and express it using the conceptual model of the eight DoV. This is possible because one dimension, modules, is highly generic and can mean just about anything. A good question for debate here is: can we drop some other DoV, by folding them into modules, without losing any expressive power that's needed for effective communication from the WG to the readers of the spec? (And yes, I have a definition of "effective" available if anyone thinks it's needed.) .................David Marston
Received on Friday, 6 September 2002 16:08:44 UTC