- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 11:26:19 -0600
- To: Dominique Hazaël-Massieux <dom@w3.org>, Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
- Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
We approved this SpecGL use case, but it has a slight inaccuracy that needs to be fixed... At 06:23 PM 6/20/03 +0200, Dominique Hazaël-Massieux wrote: >[...] > > · a Working Group has committed in its charter to a level AA > > conformance to the Specification Guidelines for its specifications (as > > required for AA conformance to the Operational Guidelines, for instance) ; The "(as required...)" is inaccurate. OpsGL AA conformance doesn't require SpecGL AA conformance. Rather, OpsGL CP1.1 (as revised) requires that the WG make a SpecGL conformance commitment (of A, or AA, or AAA). This is a priority 1 CP. Therefore it relates to OpsGL A conformance. This would be accurate: "* a Working Group has committed in its charter to conform to the Specification Guidelines for its specifications (as required for A conformance to the Operational Guidelines, for instance), and has picked the level AA conformance level." > > it uses the Specification Guidelines to assess the conformance of its > > specifications at different stages of the specification life -Lofton.
Received on Monday, 28 July 2003 13:26:00 UTC