This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 1061 - Non-specification specifications (in About this document)
Summary: Non-specification specifications (in About this document)
Status: RESOLVED REMIND
Alias: None
Product: QA
Classification: Unclassified
Component: QASpec-GL (show other bugs)
Version: LC-2004-11-22
Hardware: All All
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Karl Dubost
QA Contact: Karl Dubost
URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w...
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2005-01-26 14:58 UTC by Dominique Hazael-Massieux
Modified: 2005-04-28 11:53 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:


Attachments

Description Dominique Hazael-Massieux 2005-01-26 14:58:27 UTC
The "About this document" section, first paragraph, has a sentence "Note 
that for some specifications ... separate conformance section."

The items listed, QA Handbook and Architecture of the World Wide Web 
simply aren't specifications.  The earlier definition of specification 
said, correctly, that a specification is a set of technical 
requirements.  If there are no requirements, then it's not a 
specification.  The entire sentence can be deleted.  If it's necessary 
to comment on such documents, then it should be something like "Some of 
the documents produced by the W3C process aren't specifications (in the 
sense used here), and hence this document does not apply" (or they need 
no conformance clause). 

I don't agree with a blanket statement that documents for which 
conformance is not an issue should have a conformance clause that 
explains why it doesn't need a conformance clause.  Not only is there 
the obvious circular contradiction, but the only justification for such 
a statement would be if there might be confusion about it.  For example, 
since the QA Handbook (for example) begins by saying that it's 
non-normative, there's no need for that document to belabor the point.  
Perhaps it might say "Documents for which conformance is not an issue 
may choose to include a statement explaining the lack of a conformance 
clause, if there might be confusion around that point." though 
personally, I think even that's saying too much.

Minor error:  the previous sentence, "A conformance clause template ..." 
has an error at "...to assist editors satisfy requirements...."  The 
second "to," between "editors" and "satisfy" is missing.
Comment 1 Dominique Hazael-Massieux 2005-03-04 02:26:28 UTC
The 2nd part of the comment (whether we should or not require a conformance
clauses for non-normative technical reports) has been moved to bug 1142
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1142
Comment 2 Dominique Hazael-Massieux 2005-03-04 02:28:14 UTC
The Working Group agreed as mentioned in the 1st part of the comment that the
term "technical reports" to describe the non-normative documents that go through
the W3C process would better describe the intent of the sentence, and will
change the wording accordingly.
Comment 3 Dominique Hazael-Massieux 2005-04-28 11:53:49 UTC
setting version to LC in case of future use