W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > April 2003

Re: proposed closure of LC-64 -- oops

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 07:42:12 -0600
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030422073122.03fcc400@rockynet.com>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org

I did miss something.  The last parenthetical comment on Susan's "Proposal" 
-- need to define "terms" (or did she mean "conformance terms"?).

Alternatives:

1.) no need, it's clear
2.) yes, define "terms" (her suggestion)
3.) yes, define "conformance terms" (what she meant?)
4.) don't need to define, but give a couple of better "for example" than 
current text.

Suggestion.  How about giving this to our Glossary team (i.e., the owners 
of the QA Glossary), for a proposal, due Friday?

(Btw, I think there is some merit to Susan's comment.  This is not so 
obvious that I am able to quickly reel off a couple of "for example" of 
conformance terms, special or SpecGL-standard.)

-Lofton.


At 05:06 PM 4/21/2003 -0600, Lofton Henderson wrote:

>http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/lc-issues#x64
>
>Unless I'm missing something, this is a simple editorial glitch.  The 
>words "any conformance terms used in" are missing from the beginning of 
>ConfReqs.
>
>Proposal:  Close the issue by adding the missing words.
>
>Objections?
>
>-Lofton.
>
Received on Tuesday, 22 April 2003 09:48:05 GMT

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