- From: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 14:43:41 -0600 (MDT)
- To: www-qa@w3.org
On Tue, 24 Sep 2002, Karl Dubost wrote:
> How a short Spec like
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-soap12-af-20020924/ can conform with the
> Spec Guidelines?
>
> No conformance section, etc. The question is open in the sense does
> it make sense or not?
It makes a lot of sense for future short spec writers to conform to
future SpecGL, IMO. To make such conformance possible, SpecGL must
demand just the essential/core features from a spec and must not
demand explanations of why many variability aspects are irrelevant in
a given context. SpecGL will have these properties if it conforms to
its own "minimal set" requirement.
> So how we should organize the spec guidelines to take that kind of
> spec into account or should we comment the SOAP materials to be in
> accordance with Spec Guidelines.
SpecGL should not be modified just to make more current specs "fit".
We do not need backward compatibility here, IMHO. We should think of
"good spec" properties and document/demand them. Hopefully, good
properties do not depend much on spec length. Otherwise, you would add
"MetaDoV" model to address variability of specs themselves.
Alex.
--
| HTTP performance - Web Polygraph benchmark
www.measurement-factory.com | HTTP compliance+ - Co-Advisor test suite
| all of the above - PolyBox appliance
Received on Tuesday, 24 September 2002 16:43:42 UTC