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 18:11:38 +0200
To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1092845497.4811.273.camel@stratustier>
Le mer 18/08/2004 ŗ 18:05, Lofton Henderson a ťcrit :
> I can think of at least two counter-examples.  One, SVG, has the typical 
> verbiage about RFC2119 keywords, etc.  But there is *lots* of stuff that is 
> normative that doesn't involve keywords.  Description of graphical effect 
> of an element, for example -- it is ordinary descriptive prose, but really 
> contains the detailed conformance requirements for graphical viewers.  Only 
> "common sense" tells a reader that it's normative.  (The "Common Sense 
> Conformance Model"!)

I agree this a bug in the SVG spec; and this would go counter to the GP
in C2; I don't see how it shows that this needs to be in the conformance
section.

> I still disagree.  But won't pursue the issue, as it's apparently a 
> minority opinion.

Well, please pursue the issue :) The question is not whether you're in a
minority opinion or not, the question is to try to get consensus by
pinpointing where our disagreement comes from.

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


Received on Wednesday, 18 August 2004 16:11:40 GMT

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