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

Re: wording "strict conformance"

From: <skall@nist.gov>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 21:27:40 -0400 (EDT)
To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Message-ID: <1029461260.3d5c550cc1f05@email.nist.gov>
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org

Quoting Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>:

> I need a little help clarifying some wording...
> Reference:
> http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2002/08/qaframe-spec-0811#Ck-clarify-strict
> It says:
> "Either use the definition provided above (@@link) (or in the QA
> Glossary 
> [QA-GLOSSARY]), modify it, or provide your own definition (@@really?!).
> It 
> is strongly recommended that the definition given above be used to
> ensure 
> consistency across WGs and promote a common understanding of conformance
> requirements."
> What about "...provide your own definition"?  Why do we say that?  What
> is 
> an example/scenario where it would make sense?

Almost none.  The only thing that we may have meant is that the definition 
talks about requirements in the specification as in "only requirements defined 
in the specification".  If one was defining strict conformance for a level or 
a profile they would talk about "requirements in the level/profile" instead of 

Received on Thursday, 15 August 2002 21:27:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:14:28 UTC