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

Re: [Issue-SpecGL] Conformance wording and SpecGL

From: Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2004 10:47:44 +0200
To: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1091782064.1416.2411.camel@stratustier>
Le mer 04/08/2004 ŗ 21:49, Karl Dubost a ťcrit :
> In SpecGL
> 	http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-qaframe-spec-20040602/
> 
> We say:
> 	Good Practice:
> 	In the conformance clause, define how normative language is expressed.

FWIW, most specifications do this in a different section (usually titled
"Terminology"); I'm not sure there is any benefit to make this change.
Said otherwise, I don't think we need to move the RFC keywords
boilerplate in the conformance section; linking the "terminology"
section from there sounds like a good idea, though.

I wonder if we should revise our GP accordingly.

Dom
-- 
Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/
W3C/ERCIM
mailto:dom@w3.org


Received on Friday, 6 August 2004 04:49:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:17 GMT