ISSUE 1049: Resolution?

Ian, Al, and WG :)

This is an attempt to get a consensus. Could you reply ASAP. :) Many  
thanks.

This new piece of text includes modification in the "What does it  
mean?" section and
"Why Care?" section. It takes into account the comments of Al Gilman  
and Ian Hickson and has been proposed[1] by Dave Marston after QA WG  
teleconference.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2005May/att-0019/00- 
part


===================================================
NORMATIVE, OPTIONAL
    Good Practice 11: Use formal languages when possible.

INFORMATIVE
    What does it mean? If an existing formal language (e.g. DTD,  
Schemas,
    ...) is expressive enough to describe the technical requirements of
    the specification, use it and when the English prose and the formal
    language overlap, make it clear which one takes precedence in  
case of
    discrepancy. [INS: The presence of such a statement does not relieve
    the specification developers of their obligation to resolve  
conflicts
    through the [232]errata process required by the W3C Process Document
    [233]PROCESS-DOC]. :INS]

     [232] http://www.w3.org/2004/02/Process-20040205/tr.html#errata

INFORMATIVE
    Why care?When possible, there is an immediate benefit of using a
    formal language to describe conformance requirements. It minimizes
    ambiguities introduced by the interpretation of the prose. There is
    also the possibility of using existing tools for the given  
language to
    facilitate testing and validation.

    [INS: However, prose remains necessary to allow implementers to  
understand
the specification, as well as to express additional requirements the
formal language cannot express; this means that there are possible
overlaps between the prose and the formal language. In this case, if
the developers of the specification have a clear position on which
one is the main point of reference in case of conflict, this
precedence should be clearly stated in the document. :INS]

INFORMATIVE
    Related
      * Wiki: [234]Formal Language vs. Prose? [235]WIKI-FORMAL-LANGUAGE]
      * [236]Guidelines for the use of formal languages in IETF
        specifications [237]IETF-FORMAL]
      * INS: [238]Errata Management [239]PROCESS-DOC] :INS]

     [234] http://esw.w3.org/topic/FormalLanguageVsProse
     [236] http://www.ietf.org/IESG/STATEMENTS/pseudo-code-in-specs.txt
     [238] http://www.w3.org/2004/02/Process-20040205/tr.html#errata

INFORMATIVE
Techniques

      * There are plenty of formal languages used across W3C
        specifications: DTD, XML Schema, Relax NG, EBNF, Z Notation,  
etc.
        Picking the right one depends on the kind of specifications
        developed (language, XML or not, protocol) and the benefit from
        the formal language.
      * To avoid discrepancies between the English prose and the formal
        language, set up a process so that a given section is bound to a
        given part of the formal language, and one cannot be modified
        without the other.
      * Use the formal language tools to validate the examples given in
        the specification, to ensure they match.
      * When using several formal languages in combination, generate
        random content according to the rules defined in one of them and
        try to validate it with the others, to find discrepancies.

INFORMATIVE
Examples

    [240]XQuery Formal Semantics [241]XQUERY-SEMANTICS] section 1.1
    defines where the document is normative over the grammar specs
    (separate for XPath and XQuery) and where the grammar specs are
    normative.

     [240] http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-xquery-semantics-20050404/
=====================================


-- 
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager
*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***

Received on Tuesday, 24 May 2005 18:12:18 UTC