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

Re: CR issues disposition

From: Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 15:23:41 +0200
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1088429021.1498.41.camel@stratustier>
Hello BjŲrn,

The WG discussed the issue you raised during its F2F two weeks ago, and
have been asked to make sure the Working Group is now understanding it
correctly.

> My concern however is that, if you want to know what is considered a
> Valid XML document you can check that in the XML 1.0 Recommendation
> where it is well-defined how to determine whether a document complies
> with these constraints or not. If you want to know what a Valid HTML
> 4.01 document is, you can check the HTML 4.01 Recommendation and find
> that it does not define it. This yields in numerous problems, namely
> that there is disagreement about the definition.

Our understanding is that you want the SpecGL to insist on the need to
define labels going along with conformance, i.e. that a specification
should create a well-defined label to designate an implementation
conforming to it in one of the specified ways.

As you noted, the latest version of SpecGL published has some relevant
bits:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-qaframe-spec-20040602/#define-terms
"
Define conformance concepts, designations
Examples: valid, well-formed, foo-conformant, document conformance
(CC/PP) consumer conformance (CC/PP)
"

We plan to improve this section to address the specific concern you
raised, but want to make sure first that we understood your issue
correctly this time :)

Thanks,

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


Received on Monday, 28 June 2004 09:24:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:16 GMT