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

Re: [Issue-SpecGL] Conformance wording and SpecGL

From: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2004 18:45:36 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20040806184336.00b0eb20@mailserver.nist.gov>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org

sounds reasonable to me.

At 04:47 AM 8/6/2004, Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux wrote:
>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 18:48:45 GMT

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