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

Re: proposed text for LC96 -

From: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 07:42:40 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030610073927.01b21820@mailserver.nist.gov>
To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org

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