- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 08:17:17 -0600
- To: david_marston@us.ibm.com
- Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
At 09:58 AM 4/28/03 -0400, you wrote: >I'm probably unable to join today's meeting, due to big meetings here. >You know my opinion: if two characteristics can be independently applied, >or one can subdivide the other, then they deserve to be separate DoV. The >main issue now is one of proper explanation. >.................David Marston I have been reviewing the issue and thread, is "GL3 a DoV"?. Of the three checkpoints, CP3.1: "specific universal minimal...." -- definitely DoV-like CP3.2: "define any special conformance terms" -- could easily be moved to GL13. CP3.3: "justify any DoV that you use" -- this is about the DoV, but isn't the part of a definition of a new DoV itself. (We collected this single CP here, replacing the multiple CPX.1, for each DoV GLX.) David's earlier summary comes to mind -- "result of a tortuous evolution". E.g., the "strict conformance" rules of the Conformance Policy, which would contribute to calling GL3 a DoV, migrated to GL9. Lots of other things also went elsewhere or went away. Recall, we were talking about further changes and said -- "let's see what it looks like, it's hard to picture what we have left now." So that is how we got here, and "here" is: definitely one CP that is DoV-like. The question: can that CP's requirements be merged into another GL somewhere? -Lofton.
Received on Monday, 28 April 2003 10:15:12 UTC