- From: Mark Skall <mark.skall@nist.gov>
- Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 13:51:28 -0500
- To: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>, www-qa-wg@w3.org
At 10:14 AM 12/4/2002 -0500, Karl Dubost wrote: >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? It fails. Not only is it not labelled as an ICS, it's not included with the guideline AND we don't tell implementers (i.e., spec developers)to fill it out. **************************************************************** Mark Skall Chief, Software Diagnostics and Conformance Testing Division Information Technology Laboratory National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8970 Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8970 Voice: 301-975-3262 Fax: 301-590-9174 Email: skall@nist.gov ****************************************************************
Received on Wednesday, 4 December 2002 13:59:10 UTC