- From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 10:14:27 -0500
- 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 UTC