It would be acceptable to add more text to the discussion - however, my comment about your suggestion is HUH? I don't understand it. It seems very complex. Can you suggest something much more simpler and straight forward? lynne >>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 Tuesday, 10 June 2003 07:42:56 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:13 GMT