W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa@w3.org > April 2003

Re: profiles/modules/levels

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 10:14:06 -0600
Message-Id: <>
To: Mark Skall <mark.skall@nist.gov>
Cc: www-qa@w3.org

At 10:00 AM 4/29/03 -0400, you wrote:

>At 02:32 PM 4/29/2003 +0100, Andrew Thackrah wrote:
>>But what if the spec author choses another type of architecture that we
>>have not thought of? My argument is about this case. I want to make sure 
>>that our
>>checkpoints address this possibility. At the moment we have specific
>>checkpoints for p, m and l. But if someone wants to use a new type of Dov
>>called 'personality' or whatever then SpecGL is silent. So I am arguing
>>that when we roll the checkpoints into a single GL, we should keep the
>>specific checkpoints for the important concepts of p/m/l but ensure that
>>we have general checkpoints too.
>An implementation can be conformant to SpecGL and include extensions.  If 
>someone wants to use another form of DOV, they may.  That is a 
>(conformant) extension.

In my view, all of GL9 (extensions) is about functional extensions to the 
technology.  It is not about ways in which a spec's conformance model (or 
conformance policy), per se, might exceed and extend SpecGL's concepts.  A 
new DoV, or a generic catch-all DoV, is about the latter.


>Since there is no way of pre-determining what kind of DOV (or any other 
>type of extension) someone may choose to include there is nothing to gain 
>by having general checkpoints.  The general checkpoint would be redundant.
>>On Mon, 28 Apr 2003 david_marston@us.ibm.com wrote:
>> >
>> > Andrew Thackrah writes:
>> > >...since it seems from QAWG discussion that there are differences of
>> > >opinion on our definition of p/m/l then I don't think we are in a
>> > >position to impose a rigid definition on others....It doesn't matter if
>> > >your DoV does not conform to someone elses definition of a profile or
>> > >whatever - all you have to do is document your chosen system and if you
>> > >have more than one DoV then document the relationship between them.
>> >
>> > But it *does* matter, becausae these specs aren't written in isolation,
>> > but (usually) to be part of an integrated Web system. Schema Part 2
>> > defines data types, then XPath builds expressions around those types,
>> > then XForms and XSLT use XPath expressions, etc. If some data types
>> > (e.g., the whole ID-IDREF bundle) are designated as an optional
>> > module, then specs building above that need to say whether they depend
>> > on the full set of types or just the "core" set. QAWG has also talked
>> > about how profiles can be assembled from modules, so the naming of
>> > subsets is useful even within a single spec.
>> >
>> > Some WGs may have used the p/m/l terminology in ways other than the
>> > SpecGL-sanctioned meanings in the past, but it's desirable that the
>> > W3C move toward consistent usage. Notice that the documentation terms
>> > "Version", "Edition", and "Part" have been subject to consistency
>> > constraints for some time now, and the specs are better for it.
>> > .................David Marston
>> >
Received on Tuesday, 29 April 2003 12:11:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:43:21 UTC