- From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 00:05:08 -0500
- To: www-qa@w3.org
hi, It's always very difficult for a developer to understand the organization of a technology. Some are monolithic, some are defined on multiple documents, some are organized in terms of profiles, modules or levels, but not necessary in the same way. What are we able to learn from the W3C Specifications. * Monolithic: the whole technology is defined in only one specification Ex: HTML 3.2, CSS 1 * Composite: the technology is defined by multiple specs. Ex: CSS 3, XML Schema === Monolithic === * PNG - 1996 - uses the term profile to refer to ICC profile which is a """Description of the colour space (in the form of an International Color Consortium (ICC) profile) to which the samples in the image conform.""" * PicsRules - 1997 - The technology is a language to define profiles. These profiles will be used by browsers to block access to content. A profile in this case is a set of options using a technology. * Dom Level 1 - 1998 - Level is used to identify an history in the technology. * CSS Level 1 - 1996 (Rev 1999) - uses the term "level" for the version number of the technology. -----> CSS Level 2 * WCAG - uses of levels to define a set of features to be implemented. When you have reached a level, you can do more by implementing more features. One level is always inclusive than the previous one. * ATAG follow the level of WCAG * XHTML Modularization - is an interesting case. They define severals modules (with a CORE one, we could say a minimum profile but not called per se a profile) which is a tool to create other specifications like XHTML 1.1, XHTML Basic, XHTML Print or external specifications. In the chapter 5 they talk about the notion of profiles like a set of modules for a specific application. * QA Framework - Three independent sets of specifications which are using the levels in the same way than WCAG * HTML 4.01 has a notion of profile but which is completely unrelated to the topic. I mention it to avoid the confusion. * SMIL 2.0 is very big compared to SMIL 1.0 and introduces the notion of Modules and Profiles. A few profiles are defined but the spec is a monolithic one, which seen from outside is more consistent for a developer. * UUAG: A very particular case. There's a notion of level as usual for WAI but the notion of profile is very dependant on each person creating a unique kind of profile. * SVG 2.0 is made of modules. Though there's no profile, it seems you have to implement everything. In this case it's more how to cut the technology. * SVG Tiny and Basic are particular profiles using the modules of SVG 1.1 === Composite === * CSS Level 3 - still in dev - is a collection of little modules, the implementations are supposed to follow a profile if this one is developed. For now there's still no master document. The profile is a set of modules put together * Dom Level 2 includes 14 modules. Core Module is fundamental and others are optional. Surprising thing the Dom Level Core document has a reference to Dom Level 2 HTML which is not yet a rec at the time of the publication There's a mention of level of conformance but not really defined per se. No mention of profiles. ---> Dom Level 3 - still in dev. defines 16 modules There is no notion of profile even if the fact to have different "levels" of conformance could be assimilated to profiles. === Conclusion === Level used as version number: CSS, DOM or used as level of Conformance Modules as a piece of technology sometimes in an indivual spec, sometimes in a monolithic spec. Modules can be associated together. Profiles are a set of modules to define the application of the technology in a particular context. Some specs are definition of profiles and called like that like in CSS 3 (CSS Mobile Profile for example). Some specs are definitions of profiles but are not called profiles like XHTML 1.1 -- Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/ W3C Conformance Manager *** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Monday, 8 December 2003 00:07:06 UTC