- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 19:48:22 +0200
- To: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
- Cc: www-qa@w3.org
On Tuesday, May 3, 2005, 5:31:48 PM, Karl wrote: KD> Dear Chris, KD> Thanks for your comments on the Last Call version of the QA Framework: KD> Specification Guidelines[0] - 22 November 2004 KD> After two weeks from now (on May 18, 2005), the lack of answer will KD> be considered as if you had accepted the comment. KD> Original comment (bug 1158): KD> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005Mar/0014.html KD> The QA Working Group has completed a SpecGL ICS for SpecGL itself, KD> available at: KD> http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2005/04/specgl-specgl-ics.html KD> We believe SpecGL now conforms to itself, since it implements all the KD> Requirements; it also implements all but one Good Practice. Thank you. KD> Follow KD> belows details answers to the comments made in the footnotes of the ICS KD> the TAG filled for the previous version of SpecGL [1] KD> 1) No link to Class of Products statement KD> We believe linking to the section including the statement is sufficient OK KD> 2) ICS required for claiming conformance? KD> We have clarified that KD> "if all the Requirements are checked on the ICS as being satisfied, then KD> conformance can be claimed as detailed below", linking to the KD> conformance claim section, which requires linking to a completed ICS. Much better KD> 3) Class of Product vs Scope KD> The scope is what is covered by the specification; the class of products KD> are part of defining the scope, but a more narrow (and in our opinion KD> important) aspect of it that directly affects conformance. OK KD> 4) "Using the defined term conformance model..." KD> Done Thanks KD> 5) Checking whether references have been reviewed carefully KD> The good practice has been reworded to be less workflow oriented Yes, so I see. KD> 6) Positive statements for no subdivision KD> SpecGL clarifies now that a positive statement is indeed needed, and KD> indeed states that it is not subdivided. Great. KD> 7) No extensibility mechanism KD> We disagree that SpecGL doesn't define an extensibility mechansim. In KD> section 4.3 (Extensibility), we say that one can extend SpecGL as long KD> as it doesn't negate the requirements given in the specification. This KD> is a basic extensibility mechanism, and we don't think at this time KD> there is any need for a more complex one. Well, okay. Bear in mind then, that you can never publish a second edition or a new version of this specification that has any deprecated or obsolete features, as these would contradict the one constraint that you have on extending the specification. Also bear in mind that any third party can conformantly claim to have published version 2 of SpecGL. However, your addition of a comments field on the pro-forma goes a long way to allowing specifications to talk about what their extensibility mechanism is, so overall i think this is fine. The main point in this part of the comment was to test whether the extensibility mechanism requirement was truly universal. Would a comment "We have no extensibility mechanism because we think they are bad" count as an extensibility mechanism in terms of SpecGL conformance? KD> 8) No deprecated features listed KD> SpecGL clarifies that making a positive statement about deprecated KD> features is only needed when there was a previous version of the KD> specification (which is not the case for SpecGL itself) Okay (although I think first versions of specifications can sometimes have deprecated features). KD> 9) No obsolete features identified KD> Same as 8 OK KD> 10) & 11) Hard to demonstrate some GP KD> The QA WG has moved the given GP into a separate informative section of KD> SpecGL, since they were indeed too workflow-oriented to fit with the KD> other Good Practices. Thanks KD> [0] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-qaframe-spec-20041122/ KD> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005Mar/att-0014/ KD> qaframework-recursiveconformance.html Nice job. -- Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org Chair, W3C SVG Working Group W3C Graphics Activity Lead
Received on Tuesday, 3 May 2005 17:48:30 UTC