Re: [SMIL30 LC comment] Use of 'must' in informative sections ( LC-1814)

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [SMIL30 LC comment] Use of 'must' in informative sections ( LC-1814)

Thierry Michel

Dear Chris Lilley  ,

The SYMM Working Group has reviewed the latest (response) comment you
sent [1] on the Last Call Working Draft [2] of the Synchronized
Multimedia Integration Language (SMIL 3.0) published on 13 Jul 2007.
Thank you for having taken the time to review the document and to send
us comments!

The Working Group's response to your comment is included below.

Please review it carefully and let us know by email at [hidden email]
if you agree with it or not before 02 nov 2007. In case of disagreement,
you are requested to provide a specific solution for or a path to a
consensus with the Working Group. If such a consensus cannot be
achieved, you will be given the opportunity to raise a formal objection
which will then be reviewed by the Director during the transition of
this document to the next stage in the W3C Recommendation Track.

Thanks,

For the SYMM Working Group,
Thierry Michel
W3C Staff Contact

  1. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-smil/2007OctDec/0106.html
  2. http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-SMIL3-20070713/


=====

Your *initial* comment on Synchronized Multimedia Integration Language (SMIL
3.0)...:

> Hello www-smil,
>
> While reading
>
> Synchronized Multimedia Integration Language (SMIL 3.0)
> W3C Working Draft 13 July 2007
>
> I noticed several instances of the word 'must' in informative sections.
> This is problematic, due to the common usage of 'must' as a conformance
> requirement in W3C specifications.
>
> Please either
>
> a) reword these sections to avoid 'must', or
> b) add clarificatory wording regarding use of 'must' in the
> specification as a whole and noting any relationship to RFC 2119, or
> c) consider making some of the informative sections normative, if
> 'must' is indeed used as a conformance requirement in some cases


Working Group [2nd] Resolution (LC-1814):
---------------------------------------

Add/Replace the following text to the "Conformance" section:
<<The keywords "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in the normative parts of
this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
In informative sections the meaning of these words is aligned with the
requirement level of the corresponding normative sections, whereas - in
case of ambiguity - the text in the normative section takes precedence
over the informative section. The intent of the informative section is
to refine and clarify the normative text.
For readability, these keywords do not appear in all uppercase letters
in this specification.>>

To respond to your issue,the group has added a statement to the
"Conformance" section stating that the RFC2119 words do not have any
conformance-level meaning.
The group will make sure that whatever is referred to from informative
sections is properly defined - with corresponding conformance level -
in the normative sections and vice versa.
The group has identified a large number of required modifications
related to your comments. Each of the proposed changes has to be
reviewed by the human to ensure the quality of the specification.
The group will prepare corresponding changes within the CR time frame.

----


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [SMIL30 LC comment] Use of 'must' in informative sections ( LC-1814)

Chris Lilley

On Friday, November 23, 2007, 5:13:18 AM, Thierry wrote:

TM> Dear Chris Lilley  ,

TM> The SYMM Working Group has reviewed the latest (response) comment you
TM> sent [1] on the Last Call Working Draft [2] of the Synchronized
TM> Multimedia Integration Language (SMIL 3.0) published on 13 Jul 2007.
TM> Thank you for having taken the time to review the document and to send
TM> us comments!

TM> The Working Group's response to your comment is included below.

TM> Please review it carefully and let us know by email at [hidden email]
TM> if you agree with it or not before 02 nov 2007. In case of disagreement,
TM> you are requested to provide a specific solution for or a path to a
TM> consensus with the Working Group. If such a consensus cannot be
TM> achieved, you will be given the opportunity to raise a formal objection
TM> which will then be reviewed by the Director during the transition of
TM> this document to the next stage in the W3C Recommendation Track.

TM> Thanks,

TM> For the SYMM Working Group,
TM> Thierry Michel
TM> W3C Staff Contact

TM>   1. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-smil/2007OctDec/0106.html
TM>   2. http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-SMIL3-20070713/


TM> =====

TM> Your *initial* comment on Synchronized Multimedia Integration Language (SMIL
TM> 3.0)...:
>> Hello www-smil,

>> While reading

>> Synchronized Multimedia Integration Language (SMIL 3.0)
>> W3C Working Draft 13 July 2007

>> I noticed several instances of the word 'must' in informative sections.
>> This is problematic, due to the common usage of 'must' as a conformance
>> requirement in W3C specifications.

>> Please either

>> a) reword these sections to avoid 'must', or
>> b) add clarificatory wording regarding use of 'must' in the
>> specification as a whole and noting any relationship to RFC 2119, or
>> c) consider making some of the informative sections normative, if
>> 'must' is indeed used as a conformance requirement in some cases


TM> Working Group [2nd] Resolution (LC-1814):
TM> ---------------------------------------

TM> Add/Replace the following text to the "Conformance" section:
TM> <<The keywords "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
TM> "SHOULD", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in the normative parts of
TM> this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
TM> In informative sections the meaning of these words is aligned with the
TM> requirement level of the corresponding normative sections, whereas - in
TM> case of ambiguity - the text in the normative section takes precedence
TM> over the informative section. The intent of the informative section is
TM> to refine and clarify the normative text.
TM> For readability, these keywords do not appear in all uppercase letters
TM> in this specification.>>

Thanks, that is a lot clearer.

TM> To respond to your issue,the group has added a statement to the
TM> "Conformance" section stating that the RFC2119 words do not have any
TM> conformance-level meaning.
TM> The group will make sure that whatever is referred to from informative
TM> sections is properly defined - with corresponding conformance level -
TM> in the normative sections and vice versa.

Sounds good.

TM> The group has identified a large number of required modifications
TM> related to your comments. Each of the proposed changes has to be
TM> reviewed by the human to ensure the quality of the specification.
TM> The group will prepare corresponding changes within the CR time frame.

Are any of those changes going to affect conformance? If for example they are all in informative sections then they would not, and I would be satisfied.




--
 Chris Lilley                    mailto:[hidden email]
 Interaction Domain Leader
 Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead
 Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [SMIL30 LC comment] Use of 'must' in informative sections ( LC-1814)

Thierry Michel

Chris Lilley wrote:

> On Friday, November 23, 2007, 5:13:18 AM, Thierry wrote:
>
> TM> Dear Chris Lilley  ,
>
> TM> The SYMM Working Group has reviewed the latest (response) comment you
> TM> sent [1] on the Last Call Working Draft [2] of the Synchronized
> TM> Multimedia Integration Language (SMIL 3.0) published on 13 Jul 2007.
> TM> Thank you for having taken the time to review the document and to send
> TM> us comments!
>
> TM> The Working Group's response to your comment is included below.
>
> TM> Please review it carefully and let us know by email at [hidden email]
> TM> if you agree with it or not before 02 nov 2007. In case of disagreement,
> TM> you are requested to provide a specific solution for or a path to a
> TM> consensus with the Working Group. If such a consensus cannot be
> TM> achieved, you will be given the opportunity to raise a formal objection
> TM> which will then be reviewed by the Director during the transition of
> TM> this document to the next stage in the W3C Recommendation Track.
>
> TM> Thanks,
>
> TM> For the SYMM Working Group,
> TM> Thierry Michel
> TM> W3C Staff Contact
>
> TM>   1. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-smil/2007OctDec/0106.html
> TM>   2. http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-SMIL3-20070713/
>
>
> TM> =====
>
> TM> Your *initial* comment on Synchronized Multimedia Integration Language (SMIL
> TM> 3.0)...:
>>> Hello www-smil,
>
>>> While reading
>
>>> Synchronized Multimedia Integration Language (SMIL 3.0)
>>> W3C Working Draft 13 July 2007
>
>>> I noticed several instances of the word 'must' in informative sections.
>>> This is problematic, due to the common usage of 'must' as a conformance
>>> requirement in W3C specifications.
>
>>> Please either
>
>>> a) reword these sections to avoid 'must', or
>>> b) add clarificatory wording regarding use of 'must' in the
>>> specification as a whole and noting any relationship to RFC 2119, or
>>> c) consider making some of the informative sections normative, if
>>> 'must' is indeed used as a conformance requirement in some cases
>
>
> TM> Working Group [2nd] Resolution (LC-1814):
> TM> ---------------------------------------
>
> TM> Add/Replace the following text to the "Conformance" section:
> TM> <<The keywords "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
> TM> "SHOULD", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in the normative parts of
> TM> this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
> TM> In informative sections the meaning of these words is aligned with the
> TM> requirement level of the corresponding normative sections, whereas - in
> TM> case of ambiguity - the text in the normative section takes precedence
> TM> over the informative section. The intent of the informative section is
> TM> to refine and clarify the normative text.
> TM> For readability, these keywords do not appear in all uppercase letters
> TM> in this specification.>>
>
> Thanks, that is a lot clearer.
>
> TM> To respond to your issue,the group has added a statement to the
> TM> "Conformance" section stating that the RFC2119 words do not have any
> TM> conformance-level meaning.
> TM> The group will make sure that whatever is referred to from informative
> TM> sections is properly defined - with corresponding conformance level -
> TM> in the normative sections and vice versa.
>
> Sounds good.
>
> TM> The group has identified a large number of required modifications
> TM> related to your comments. Each of the proposed changes has to be
> TM> reviewed by the human to ensure the quality of the specification.
> TM> The group will prepare corresponding changes within the CR time frame.
>
> Are any of those changes going to affect conformance? If for example they are all in informative sections then they would not, and I would be satisfied.

We do not plan to change informative sections to normative sections, in
order to avoid breaking conformance.


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [SMIL30 LC comment] Use of 'must' in informative sections ( LC-1814)

Chris Lilley

On Monday, November 26, 2007, 9:49:39 PM, Thierry wrote:

TM> Chris Lilley wrote:
>> On Friday, November 23, 2007, 5:13:18 AM, Thierry wrote:

>> TM> The group has identified a large number of required modifications
>> TM> related to your comments. Each of the proposed changes has to be
>> TM> reviewed by the human to ensure the quality of the specification.
>> TM> The group will prepare corresponding changes within the CR time frame.

>> Are any of those changes going to affect conformance? If for example they are all in informative sections then they would not, and I would be satisfied.

TM> We do not plan to change informative sections to normative sections, in
TM> order to avoid breaking conformance.

In that case your proposed plan fully satisfies my original comment; please mark your disposition of comments as "agree".


--
 Chris Lilley                    mailto:[hidden email]
 Interaction Domain Leader
 Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead
 Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [SMIL30 LC comment] Use of 'must' in informative sections ( LC-1814)

Thierry Michel

Chris,


Thanks for your agreement.

  Lilley wrote:

> On Monday, November 26, 2007, 9:49:39 PM, Thierry wrote:
>
> TM> Chris Lilley wrote:
>>> On Friday, November 23, 2007, 5:13:18 AM, Thierry wrote:
>
>>> TM> The group has identified a large number of required modifications
>>> TM> related to your comments. Each of the proposed changes has to be
>>> TM> reviewed by the human to ensure the quality of the specification.
>>> TM> The group will prepare corresponding changes within the CR time frame.
>
>>> Are any of those changes going to affect conformance? If for example they are all in informative sections then they would not, and I would be satisfied.
>
> TM> We do not plan to change informative sections to normative sections, in
> TM> order to avoid breaking conformance.
>
> In that case your proposed plan fully satisfies my original comment; please mark your disposition of comments as "agree".
>
>