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

Re: proposed text for LC96 -

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 11:02:07 -0600
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030609083447.01e3ae70@rockynet.com>
To: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org

At 08:53 PM 6/7/03 -0400, Lynne Rosenthal wrote:

>We decided that CP 3.1 requires that the minimal requirements  be a 
>collection in 1 place rather than distributed in the document.
>
>Proposal is to add a sentence to the existing rationale - so that it reads 
>as follows:
>
>Rationale: the reader must be able to recognize any minimum functionality, 
>complexity or support that applies to conforming products of a specific 
>class.  It helps the reader find these requirements by presenting them as 
>a collection, in one place rather than distributed throughout the document.
>
>
>Any Comments?

I think that it would be useful, in the Discussion, to add a little more 
detail, especially to the "distributed throughout the document" 
notion.  Specifically, capture some of the reasoning that we went through 
(in telecon) in order to conclude that this should be Priority 
2.  Something like, "If the specification is written in conformance to 
other requirements in this SpecGL, then any universal minima will be 
implicitly represented amongst the specific conformance requirements of the 
individual CoPs.  In principle, then, the universal minima can be 
derived.  However, such derivation could be complex and error-prone."

Question.  If we believe this to be true, then does this have any bearing 
on the question of LC-95 -- is GL3 a DoV?

-Lofton.
Received on Monday, 9 June 2003 13:01:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:13 GMT