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

Re: [SpecGL Draft] A.1 GP In the conformance clause, define how normative language is expressed.

From: Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 12:01:15 +0200
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1092822138.4811.219.camel@stratustier>
Le lun 16/08/2004 ŗ 22:41, Karl Dubost a ťcrit :
> Le 05 aoŻt 2004, ŗ 15:04, Karl Dubost a ťcrit :
> > Good Practice:
> > 	In the conformance clause, define how normative language is expressed.

So, trying to clarify what I was saying during Monday's teleconf:
- I think we really mean how "conformance requirements are expressed"; I
don't know what we would mean by "normative language", e.g. how does
"normative language" relate to "normative content" [C2 does in fact uses
the "conformance requirements" term rather than "normative language"]
- having reviewed quite a few W3C specifications, I know that I don't
think it's a bug for anyone not to describe its conformance requirements
style in the conformance section, i.e. I wouldn't ask anybody to change
their specs if the information is already available in an obvious place,
like a "Terminology" section; as such, I don't feel compelled to put
this as a good practice, since I know I wouldn't in fact recommend it
- I agree that an option could be to relax the GP to allow linking from
the conformance section rather than including in it; but I know as a
spec author I would find that useless
- I like that our new SpecGL is lite; creating a good practice for this
looks too heavy for me

I'm still of the opinion that this GP should be in C2, with a technique
indicating to put it in the conformance section or in a terminology
section

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


Received on Wednesday, 18 August 2004 10:01:17 GMT

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