- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2003 01:29:57 +0200
- To: david_marston@us.ibm.com
- Cc: www-qa@w3.org
* david_marston@us.ibm.com wrote: >Alex and Bjoern seem to be converging on an understanding that I think >is intended by SpecGL: >A spec specifies the behavior of one or more classes of product. That >is, the class is the conformance subject. Each implementation is one >instance of the class, and it can be tested for conformance. Hmm. Various W3C Technical Reports define and/or use the term "implementation" as opposed to specifications, documents, etc. >Example: the XSLT spec has one class of product, an XSLT processor. It >does not define the notion of conformance for a stylesheet editor, a >validator, or any other product. Why are stylesheets not a class of product here? Is this considered good practise? I must admit that I find it odd that the XSLT 1.0 Rec does not mention stylesheets in its section on conformance or not to consider XSLT stylesheets a class of product of the XSLT 1.0 Recommendation. I would appreciate if the Specification Guidelines require that all requirements of a specification are directly bound to a class of product (which would consider the conformance section of XSLT 1.0 bad practise).
Received on Thursday, 4 September 2003 19:30:16 UTC