W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > April 2004

Re: QAH draft for Wednesday

From: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 13:26:07 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20040413132547.01d3af80@mailserver.nist.gov>
To: Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux <dom@w3.org>, Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org

I agree and was thinking along those same lines - putting something in the 
Intro.

At 12:29 PM 4/13/2004, Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux wrote:
>Le mar 13/04/2004 ŗ 18:07, Lofton Henderson a ťcrit :
> > >4. Conformance
> > >Do we really need this section.  I suggest removing it.  It adds nothing
> > >and may set a bad precedent.  Since this is a Handbook, we don't violate
> > >our own rule of having a conformance section in every specification.
> >
> > I was debating this.  On the one hand, we say "Every W3C TR should have a
> > Conformance section".  Are we vulnerable to criticism if the QAH does
> > not?
>
>Given the type of document QAH is, I think we'd better get rid of the
>conformance section ; of course, it doesn't hurt if we say why in the
>introduction (but keep it short).
>
>Dom
>--
>Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/
>W3C/ERCIM
>mailto:dom@w3.org
>
Received on Tuesday, 13 April 2004 13:27:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:15 GMT