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

Re: +AFs-www-qa-wg+AF0 Lynne's comments about SpecGL

From: David Marston/Cambridge/IBM <david_marston@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 08:42:42 -0500
To: +ADw-www-qa-wg+AEA-w3.org+AD4
Message-ID: <OFF3E895C6.A14B07C0-ON85256C83.000E3CE2@lotus.com>

>13.2 Distinguish normative and informative text....
>Is it sufficient to only label informative items and by
>default everything else is normative? Do we want editors to label all
>sections, explain in Scope what is or isn+IBk-t normative?
>For SpecGL, in Scope add a general statement that examples and the
>rationale are informative unless otherwise indicated and that the GL,
>CP, and +IBg-to fulfill+ICYgGQ- are normative.

I think a Rec should be a standalone document in this regard. In other
words, a reader of the Rec should not need to know that somewhere are
other docs (SpecGL, Style Guide, whatever) that affect interpretation.
I suggest that the checkpoint is minimally fulfilled if either the
Rec's intro or its conformance clause gives a rule-of-thumb for
determining the informative text. In unusual circumstances, that
might be a statement that all content is normative. In more usual
circumstances, the policy statement will say that all content is
normative unless explicitly labeled to the contrary.

>9.1 Indicate if extensions are disallowed
>9.2 Indicate if extensions are allowed
>Is there a way to combine these?

Originally, I think these were separated because they had different
priorities. Also, the above is many stages of refinement beyond the
original "flavors of conformance" stuff and has probably emerged as
one checkpoint.
.................David Marston
Received on Monday, 2 December 2002 12:55:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:14:29 UTC