- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 02:47:15 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13490 Summary: Section 2.2.1, Conformance Classes: Conformance Checkers has an awkwardly worded sentence Product: HTML WG Version: unspecified Platform: PC OS/Version: Windows NT Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: HTML5 spec (editor: Ian Hickson) AssignedTo: ian@hixie.ch ReportedBy: kelly.ford@microsoft.com QAContact: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org CC: mike@w3.org, public-html-wg-issue-tracking@w3.org, public-html@w3.org, kelly.ford@microsoft.com Current: (This is only a "SHOULD" and not a "MUST" requirement because it has been proven to be impossible. [COMPUTABLE]) Proposed: This is only a SHOULD and not a MUST requirement because exhaustive and complete testing of all failure cases would be impossible. Reason: If such a requirement is completely impossible, the requirement should likely not exist. The proposed wording better reflects the nature of such a requirement. -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 1 August 2011 02:47:16 UTC