This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
The XML Core WG reviewed: QA Framework: Specification Guidelines http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-qaframe-spec-20041122/ and has a concern about "classes of products." Specifically, the WG has a problem with: 2.2 Requirement A: Identify who or what will implement the specification. and 4.4 Requirement B: Define how deprecated feature is handled by each class of product. Our problem with the latter is just the "by each class of product" part which reduces to our issue with the former. We find 2.2 Requirement A to be unclear and potentially dangerous. It is not clear how to define a class of product, and it is not clear what the full set of classes of products might be. We don't believe there are (or could be) clear definitions of distinct classes, and we are concerned that any attempt to list classes affected by a spec might end up excluding some products for which the spec should apply. Rather, any product should be evaluated against the spec to determine if the spec applies to it. For example, it isn't clear if xml:id is applicable to an XHTML browser UA. It depends on whether the UA relies on a parser of other xml processor that has implemented xml:id (in which case xml:id doesn't apply directly to the UA) or whether the UA does its own id recognition. In summary, we object to 2.2 Requirement A being mandatory in these Specification Guidelines. We object to 4.4 Requirement B being mandatory as long as it includes the words "by each class of product", but we remove our objection if those words are removed.
in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2005Jan/0065.html, Lofton wrote: """ I have a big problem with those assertions as stated, especially the last. How do you determine whether a spec applies to a product? One way is to identify the CoP in the spec. If not that, then how do you determine it? With the CoP Requirement, we are asking specs to state clearly, what they are defining conformance requirements for. I don't buy the argument (yet) that conformance targets can't be specified in advance, at least at some appropriate level of abstraction (which is what "class" of CoP is all about). """
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2005Feb/0021.html (dh) A requirement only makes sense if applied to a specific class of implementation. (dh) I don't think that classes of products are dangerous. (kd) Can we produce a list of classes of products (a generic list)? (dh) We have a list of sorts. (tb) Is the nature of the comment that the current language unclear? Have we not captured the essence? (dm) The complaint is that the explanation is unclear. (tb) Is it possible to have XML Core WG clarify? (dh) If we can provide a good list, we'd have a better explanation. (dm) The obvious example (relating to XML ID) is a parser, we need a general category; something that handles a documents, when receiving a document the ID:s have not yet received the property of being the ID. (dh) Send an email to the QA WG list. (kd) We need to rewrite, make it clearer what we mean. Does someone volunteer to make it clearer for the XML people? (rk) I volunteer, within a week (kd) Send your proposal to the mailing list. AI: Analyze classes of products for XML ID by Wednesday
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2005Feb/0028.html http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1052 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2005Feb/0015 KD will send the revised text from RK to the QA WG mailing list by February 15 [AI-20050214-1].
The Working Group thinks that clarifying the extent to which a specification is expected to list its classes of products - namely, for those for which it defines conformance requirements - should address the XML Core Working Group concerns, while not actually implementing their requested changes.
setting version to LC in case of future use