Re: [css3-namespace] Requirements of the document as framed by RFC 2119

karl@w3.org wrote:
> Hi, This is a QA Review comment for "CSS Module: Namespaces" 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-css3-namespace-20060828/ 2006-08-28 2nd WD
> 
> About http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-css3-namespace-20060828/
> 
> This is the list of requirements as framed by RFC 2119. The conformance
> section makes it explicit. It is though said that the full prose of this
> specification is normative and then not only the sentences where the RFC 2119
> keywords appear. But the specification uses example in the prose as well,
> like in the section 3.3 Declaring prefixes.
> 
> [[[ For example, following [REC-XML-NAMES], in Selectors [SELECT] the default
> namespace… ]]]
 >
> Is it a requirement or an example?

That is an example, obviously, because it says "for example". As the Conformance
section states, examples are not part of the normative prose.

> It will be better to clearly define all requirements, if possible with RFC
> 2119 keywords in a more systematic way. Defining the requirements and then
> the prose to explain it if needed. It will be easier to create individual
> test cases for each requirements.

It is not the habit of the CSS specifications to use RFC 2119 keywords for
every single requirement. Many -- if not most -- of the requirements in CSS2.1
are expressed as descriptive assertions, as allowed by the QA Framework
Specification Guidelines.

For example:
http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visuren.html#q5
   # Block-level elements (...) generate a principal block box that contains
   # either only block boxes or only inline boxes. The principal block box
   # establishes the containing block for descendant boxes and generated content
   # and is also the box involved in any positioning scheme. Principal block
   # boxes participate in a block formatting context.

Rendered into RFC2119 terms, that would be
   | Block-level elements (...) SHALL generate a principal block box that
   | contains either only block boxes or only inline boxes. The principal block
   | box SHALL establish the containing block for descendant boxes and generated
   | content and SHALL also be the box involved in any positioning scheme.
   | Principal block boxes SHALL participate in a block formatting context.

I can, with similarly excessive use of the word "SHALL", render all of CSS
Namespaces into RFC 2119. But I'm not convinced that it is necessary, and it
certainly makes the spec's language a lot more awkward.

What would you like me to do?

~fantasai

Received on Tuesday, 19 September 2006 05:22:58 UTC