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

Re: New verbiage for CP 8.4 <- AI-2003-0122-2 (was: "Draft minutes" of January 22, 2003 Teleconference)

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 14:42:04 -0700
Message-Id: <>
To: Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org

I think this is an improvement over the previous version.

I'm pondering David's comments, but in the meantime a purely editorial 

At 05:25 PM 1/28/03 +0100, Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux wrote:
>Le jeu 23/01/2003 ŗ 15:45, Sandra Martinez a ťcrit :
> > AI-2003-0122-2: Dominique to formulate text for issue AR-023 on CP 8.4.
> >
> > (DH): A policy statement should be added to the checkpoint, adding a
> > testable aspect in this draft.
> >
> > (DM): Would you provide the verbiage?
> >
> > (DH): I will try to come up with some verbiage to discuss offline via 
> e-mail.
>Here is my proposed verbiage for checkpoint 8.4:
>Promote consistent handling of discretionary choices.
>Conformance Requirement: the specification MUST document the identified
>policies for handling discretionary items

"choices", not "items" ("d. items" come in three flavors, of which "d. 
choices" is one -- we're talking about "d. choices" here).

>Rationale: this helps identifying where the specification could actually
>factorize these policies, so that implementations could handle
>consistently discretionary items

again, "choices".

>  - users have an expectation of what to
>expect and should be able to count on getting the same results under the
>same conditions with a given implementation.
>Note that the Working Group believes that given identical conditions,
>the effect of a discretionary choice should be consistent within a
>single implementation, and thus, that specifications should enforce it.
>Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/
Received on Tuesday, 28 January 2003 16:39:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:14:29 UTC