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

ICS for Spec Guidelines

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 17:06:36 -0500
Message-Id: <a05200f17ba12d689feeb@[24.202.71.17]>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org

Dom, Lynne,


Just a proposed wording and solution, I don't know if it makes sense.


The QA Framework: Specification Guidelines Specification does not 
comply itself to the Guideline 12. Publish an Implementation 
Conformance Statement proforma.


* CP 12.1
I propose something done on the example of UAAG 1.0.

***************************
<p>On [Date], [Specification X] [Status] ([URI]) conforms to <acronym 
title="World Wide Web Consortium">W3C</acronym>'s "<acronym 
title="Quality Assurance">QA</acronym> Framework: Specification 
Guidelines", http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-qaframe-spec-20021108/. 
Conformance level: <a 
href="QA-checklist.html">[Level-of-Conformance]</a>. </p>

* CP 12.2
And put it in the 3.2 Conformance definition of  QA Framework: 
Specification Guidelines
with modification of the wording of this section.

A specification conforms to this document by satisfying the following 
requirements.
	1. The specification has reached one of the three levels of 
Conformance.
	2. The claim of QA conformance is included in the status 
section of the specification as defined in the sample conformance 
claim.
	3. The list of checkpoints covered by the specification 
itself in  a specific file QA-checklist.html
*************************

The 3rd item is to make clear that people didn't apply to a 
checkpoint because it was not necessary.


-- 
Karl Dubost / W3C - Conformance Manager
           http://www.w3.org/QA/

      --- Be Strict To Be Cool! ---
Received on Tuesday, 3 December 2002 17:06:41 GMT

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