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: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 10:53:34 -0400
Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.2.20040818104930.01cb1930@wsxg03.nist.gov>
To: Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux <dom@w3.org>, <www-qa-wg@w3.org>

I agree with Dom
It seems to me that we are making a fuss about something that people seem 
to not have any problem with. Most people are able to understand and find 
the normative language (i.e., normative content).

--lynne


At 06:01 AM 8/18/2004, Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux wrote:
>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 14:53:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:18 GMT