Profile-specific developer beta evidence and source workflow evaluation
Document status:
reviewed. Canonical source.
Summary
The W3C QA Framework recommends explicit specification scope, implementation classes, conformance labels and treatment of profiles and extensions. It separates testable requirements from explanatory material. Locators: sections 2–3, especially the scope, conformance-model and subdivision principles, Recommendation dated 2005-08-17, retrieved 2026-09-06.
Evidence
The linked Recommendation supplies specification-writing guidance. It does not define NUIF’s beta criteria, certify its tests or establish application usability. The source is used to structure a bounded acceptance contract, not to imply W3C review of NUIF.
NUIF relevance
Adapt explicit profiles and acceptance assertions for one developer workflow:
source import, supported semantic editing, retentive synchronization and
fidelity inspection. docs/BETA.md records the contract and exclusions.
The generated corpus varies two HTML profiles, containment structure, document size, text and foreign-source syntax. Its checks concern exact re-import, no-op identity, repeated planning, fixpoint, successive edits, locality and typed refusals. CLI subprocess cases additionally exercise file replacement and report path separation. All case outcomes are reported under the recorded revision.
Reject interpreting successful generated round trips as independent semantic validation. Exporter and importer share model assumptions. The corpus cannot estimate production acceptance rates, browser visual equivalence or external user task success. Those outcomes require separately selected documents, independent oracles or external evaluation.
Validation contract
cargo xtask source-workflow fails on any violated assertion. The full
verification run archives its report and hashes it in the manifest. The
acceptance contract requires external workflow evidence before beta promotion;
registry validation or a larger generated sample cannot satisfy that condition.