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

Re: Notes on SpecGL discussions [DRAFT]

From: David Marston/Cambridge/IBM <david_marston@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 11:19:37 -0400
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF7A3C1656.CC6BB22C-ON85256C01.0052CB4D@lotus.com>

I agree with Sandra that the WG should set priorities for the existence,
locatability, and content of conformance clause in a consistent way.

I propose that checkpoint 5.4 be dropped, and the explanatory verbiage
be moved over to 10.1, which currently has no such verbiage. Of course,
the second sentence, a mere cross-reference from Ck 5.4 to GL 10, should
be dropped. Once that's done, GL 5 will focus on the establishment of a
policy, while GL 10 will focus on the documentation of it.

Ck 10.1 is about documenting the policy somewhere: "all specs must
address conformance" and thus Priority 1 is justified.
Ck 10.2 is about documenting conformance in a particular way.
Ck 10.3 is about locatability
Ck 10.4 should be added to cover citing dependent specs: "all specs
should clarify their perimeter of normativity, even where it includes
other specs" -- priority needs to be voted on

I hope that we are nearing closure on the GL 10 material.
.................David Marston
Received on Thursday, 25 July 2002 11:28:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:14:28 UTC