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

Re: Negative statements about DoV vs. old specs

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 09:27:52 -0600
Message-Id: <>
To: David Marston/Cambridge/IBM <david_marston@us.ibm.com>
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org

At 11:00 PM 8/19/02 -0400, David Marston/Cambridge/IBM wrote:
> >>First of all, we leave GL 10.3 alone, and it has Priority 1.
> >To be clear:  you are recommending to change it to P1, right?
> >(Currently it is P2 and I didn't see any change order in last week's
> >minutes.)
>Maybe I lost track of the changing priorities. If it's Priority 2,
>then it doesn't get involved in our problem. What was it under
>GL 10 that was causing our problem? Anyway, I'll go along with
>whatever the WG wants to do about priorities.

I posted the text with P2 (unchanged).  If you (or anyone) want it 
different for publication, please bring it up during Wed telecon.

> >There is an interesting subtlety here. Is 3.1 "not applicable" if
> >profiles are not supported?  Or is it a dependent checkpoint -- "yes"
> >if 10.5 is "yes"....
>I don't want to be subtle, so here we go: A checkpoint (like 4.1) that
>says "Address use of ___" always applies. Checkpoint 10.5 is where we
>let older specs off the hook for the negative statements.

What I posted yesterday is a little different.  Vague, actually (more or 
less on purpose).  Let's talk about this point on Wednesday, and decide 
what we want to say for publication.  (This is actually a small issue, 
compared to others that we're seeking feedback about.)

Received on Tuesday, 20 August 2002 11:27:32 UTC

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