W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > August 2002

Re: A few comments on SpecGL

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 15:32:31 -0600
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020801151400.02ff4df0@rockynet.com>
To: Sandra Martinez <sandra.martinez@nist.gov>
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org

At 03:45 PM 8/1/02 -0400, Sandra Martinez wrote:

>In my opinion, I do not see any conflict in the use of the term "clause" 
>the glossary specifically define it as a "part" not a section of the 
>specification and the checkpoint reiterate that position . Ck. 10-2 does 
>not contradict the idea it only makes a recommendation. If the term 
>"clause" continues to be misleading, I recommend the term "Conformance 
>Statement(s)".

Unless someone object or argues for an alternative, for the next SpecGL 
draft, I will leave it as "conformance clause", with clarifications.  But I 
think that the definition in the QA Glossary is faulty or at least 
misleading (no need to argue about which):

"Part of a specification which defines the requirements that must be 
satisfied to claim conformance to part of the specification".

"Part" is singular and suggests one piece, i.e., a section.  Replacing it 
with "a part or collection of parts" is much better, IMO.  See next (4-aug) 
draft when it is ready.

-Lofton.
Received on Thursday, 1 August 2002 17:29:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:10 GMT