This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
Is the entire discussion of umbrella specifications really necessary? The word "umbrella" isn't used anywhere else in the document, and I'm not sure that the concept is mentioned elsewhere. I think it's enough to have just the first two sentences "Specifications can be defined in one or several ....in a well defined manner," but delete the clause "denoted below as umbrella specifications" along with the figure and the paragraph explaining the figure. The idea of a composite document isn't rocket science, and doesn't deserve this much space - at least not unless it played a more prominent role later in the document.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2005Feb/0028.html KD will draft some new language on defining requirements for multi-specification documents [AI-20050214-5] and send it to the QA WG list.
In addition, the WG agreed to remove the concept of umbrella specification from SpecGL, and has moved it as a more advanced topic in Variability in Specifications.
The notion of umbrella spec has been removed from SpecGL, moved to Varaibility in Spec, and alluded to in the intro of SpecGL: "A specification is a set of technical requirements hat aim at defining a reliable interface for accomplishing a given task. Specifications can be defined in one document or as a coherent set of several documents, and can import requirements of other specifications with normative references."
setting version to LC in case of future use