- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 09:40:26 +0100
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>, www-qa@w3.org
Two further comments: >> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-qaframe-spec-20040602/ 1) I found the dimensions of variability stuff pitched about right (sorry I haven't the text in front of me - I am sitting on some grass outside Genoa airport) I suspect that you will need another sceptical reviewer at some stage for it though - it is technically the hardest part of the document - and I had already been convinced of its value. I thought I would offer the following story that you might like to include in that section: [[ One WG decided to use the built-in datatypes from XML Schema in their specification. However, on inspection it become clear that a few of these were inappropriate, and that some implementors thought the cost of implementing all of the rest prohibitive. Thus the WG identified: five or six datatypes as not recommended, and two as required, leaving the other twelve as optional. They failed to identify subsets of the optional datatypes, leaving implementors free to choose any of the 4096 possible subsets. The WG never articulated the extent of this freedom, nor wondered whether interoperability would be enhanced by restricting it in a sensible manner. Until they reached PR they also failed to consider the interaction between this and the profiles that their specification included. One of these profiles extended another specification that required the implementation of one of the optional datatypes. One AC reviewer drew critical attention to the potential conflicts in the datatypes mismatch at the extension point, resulting in heated discussion in the WG and a last minute patch to the specification in the last few weeks before it went to Recommendation. ]] (The numbers are currently approximate, if you would like to use these text, pls let me know, and I will correct them to the actual values from OWL) 2) The above story has followed what appears to be your convention of negative war stories being anonymous, whereas positive ones are attributed. Being one to let it all hang out, I tend to favour making both positive and negative war stories attributed, e.g. someone interested in the story about QAWG in section E, could look back at your aborted CR and the comments and get a more in depth feel for what went wrong and why. I think politeness could be maintained by asking the 'offending' WGs whether they mind having their negative experiences attributed to them in the QA documents. Perhaps some informal feelers on this issue would be an appropriate first step. Jeremy
Received on Monday, 14 June 2004 04:15:31 UTC