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

Re: [SpecGL Draft] A2 Require an Implementation Conformance Statement (ICS) as part of valid conformance claims.

From: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 15:27:11 -0400
Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.2.20040813152546.01c242c0@wsxg03.nist.gov>
To: "Karl Dubost" <karl@w3.org>, <www-qa-wg@w3.org>

Agree.  This is mostly captured in the previous GP, and what isn't, can 
easily be included.  See my comments (to be sent soon) on the other ICS GP

-Lynne


At 04:02 PM 8/10/2004, Karl Dubost wrote:
>Good Practice:
>         Require an Implementation Conformance Statement (ICS) as part of 
> valid conformance claims.
>
>         Do we want to put this as a good practice, as it was said in the 
> previous version of the text.
>
>         """
>         This simply puts together the previous
>         two good practices. Not only could the specification
>         provide an ICS proforma for implementors, but it could
>         require it to be linked from its standardized conformance
>         claim template.
>         @@should we include discussion on - the meaning/value
>         of a conformance claim may change as the spec
>         and tests evolve
>         """
>
>What do you think? If you look at the previous one, I have said it in why 
>care? but if you think it's valuable, I will write it with more details.
>
>--
>Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
>W3C Conformance Manager
>*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
>
Received on Friday, 13 August 2004 19:27:10 GMT

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