- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 08:34:21 -0700
- To: Mark Skall <mark.skall@nist.gov>
- Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
At 09:42 AM 1/17/03 -0500, Mark Skall wrote: [...] >>I would like to keep this simple. Basically strict conformance = no >>extensions. >>If people think there is still confusion we could add the following with >>respect to DoV >>"Dimensions of variability (e.g., modules, profiles, levels) are not >>extensions if the specification defines them or allows them to be defined." > >I like this. it states unequivocally what some of us have been saying. > >>My preference is not to add anything about DoV - I think that is what is >>adding to the confusion. > >I still think there is confusion, based on the discussion. I think it's a >mind set (the term "strict" in "strict conformance" implies, in some >people's mind, an exact match of all implementations, and thus equivalent >DOVs). Thus, I think the sentence you suggested would eliminate any confusion. +1 -Lofton.
Received on Friday, 17 January 2003 10:31:58 UTC