Add technical soundness and architectural integrity to Thorough Review

[fantasai]

Addresses #170 #141

---

Preview | Diff

[cwilso]

I would rather view this as #170 fixes #141, and only mention "technical soundness".

[fantasai]

@cwilso I'm not sure I understand your comment, but I think these are two different (certainly related) things:

• technical soundness is something we ensure through the deep review that happens through our WG discussions, and through our implementation experience requirements -- ensuring out specs are thorough, detailed, well-thought out
• architectural integrity is about ensuring the whole system hangs together, and we do it mainly through TAG review and that kind of thing

We do both, and both are valuable, but they are distinct; so that's why I kept them distinct in the PR.

[tantek]

Upon deeper reflection and a bit of research of prior wording of these things at W3C (multiple sources), I have edited the PR to a single line to encapsulate both in a shorter phrase that has established use at W3C.

I do agree with the use-cases / motivations in both issues @fantasai has mentioned and believe this edit now reinforces and resolves both.

[fantasai]

@tantek I don't think folding to "technical architecture" encompasses both, because you can have good architecture and sloppy details. As I outlined in #173 (comment) we really do explicitly review for both.

[fantasai]

[reverted to the original commit; please don't edit someone else's PR, it's very weird to have one's proposal unilaterally replaced with someone else's proposal]

[tantek]

[reverted to the original commit; please don't edit someone else's PR, it's very weird to have one's proposal unilaterally replaced with someone else's proposal]

Sorry this was me being clumsy with GitHub UI and attempting to suggest edits to a PR and clicking the wrong series of buttons / not understanding what I was doing. :/

[tantek]

Suggest placing these additions at end of that list, both per cited examples, and perhaps more importantly following some of the priority of constituencies:

• users (a11y, i18n, s12y, privacy, security)
• over implementers (technical soundness)
• over theoretical purity (architectural integrity).

[fantasai]

@tantek Done!