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

Re: ICS for Spec Guidelines

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 10:14:27 -0500
Message-Id: <a05200f04ba13cb90467f@[24.202.71.17]>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org

At 7:45 -0700 2002-12-04, Lofton Henderson wrote:
>At 08:51 AM 12/4/2002 -0500, Lynne Rosenthal wrote:
>
>>I also am a bit confused.  We agreed that the SpecGL should have an 
>>ICS and I think that the Checklist with some additions could serve 
>>that purpose.
>
>Actually, I thought it was a suitable ICS "as is" (although I might 
>add an instruction that any "N/A" answer link to an explanatory 
>comment, in a section after the table.)

Sorry about that.


>Since Karl is the 2nd person to assert that SpecGL does not have an 
>ICS, it raises a question about the checkpoint (which I asked 
>earlier):  in order to satisfy it, you MUST publish an ICS.  MUST it 
>be labelled as an ICS?  Or SHOULD it be labelled as an ICS?  Or ...? 
>I.e., SpecGL's ICS is labelled as a "Checklist".  Does SpecGL pass 
>or fail?

So we should explain what's an ICS. I tried to find Implementation 
Conformance Statement in the TR space and I didn't find it. Except if 
it's absolutely necessary we can use another wording.
(It seems to be my QA-checklist.html in a sense)

>If the answer is "fail", then it would seem that an additional 
>normative requirement needs to be added to the "to fulfill" section 
>of the checkpoint.

Yes :)

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

      --- Be Strict To Be Cool! ---
Received on Wednesday, 4 December 2002 10:33:48 GMT

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