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

Re: wording "strict conformance"

From: Mark Skall <mark.skall@nist.gov>
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 10:54:42 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>, skall@nist.gov
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org

At 08:35 AM 8/16/02 -0600, Lofton Henderson wrote:

>So what do you recommend:

I would leave the sentence in, but qualify it with examples of why/how 
someone may want to supply their own definition, putting in the examples of 
applicability to profiles, levels, etc.

>* drop the sentence(s)
>* qualify as you said -- specs might possibly narrowing *scope* of 
>definition (or its applicability) to a module, profile, level etc
>* other.
>(I was wondering, as I read it, about this:  a spec maybe could have a 
>stricter definition that tightens up ambiguities in our definition, like 
>discretionary items, etc -- we had a previous discussion about the latter, 
>inconclusive so far -- it will come back later, I think).

Mark Skall
Chief, Software Diagnostics and Conformance Testing Division
Information Technology Laboratory
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8970
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8970

Voice: 301-975-3262
Fax:   301-590-9174
Email: skall@nist.gov
Received on Friday, 16 August 2002 10:48:28 UTC

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