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

Re: New WG version of specGL

From: Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Date: 30 Jan 2003 14:57:17 +0100
To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1043935039.5836.14.camel@stratustier>
Le mer 29/01/2003 ŗ 19:41, Lofton Henderson a ťcrit :
> I have these minor comments:
> 1.) "Implementation Conformance Statement" does not appear anywhere in the 
> ICS document itself.  Should it?  The SpecGL text says this in reference to 
> its checklist:  "The latter is an Implementation Conformance Statement 
> (ICS) pro-forma for this specification. (See GL12.)"   Should something 
> like this appear in the priority-sort checklist also?  "This is an...(ICS)..."

Err, I think it does in the introduction:
" The checkpoints are presented by order of their priorities, which
makes it an appropriate Implementation Conformance Statement for the
guidelines. "
> 2.) Before each table is a statement like, "To be A-conformant with the 
> guidelines, the following checkpoints must be fulfilled:"  I suggest adding 
> a mention of priority, e.g., "To be A-conformant with the guidelines, all 
> of the Priority 1 checkpoints must be fulfilled:"
> Hmmm... I just noticed that before the 2nd table it says, "To be 
> AA-conformant with the guidelines, the following checkpoints must be 
> fulfilled:".  Which is slightly misleading (because P1 must also be 
> satisfied).  Should say, "To be AA-conformant with the guidelines, all of 
> the Priority 2 checkpoints must be fulfilled (in addition to the above 
> Priority 1 checkpoints):"  Similarly for 3rd table.

I've integrated that both in the XSLT and in the live ICS (that doesn't
show right now due to a mirroring problem).


Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/

Received on Thursday, 30 January 2003 08:57:22 UTC

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