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

Re: Karl's AI from Minutes F2F, Reading Friday AM

From: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 09:17:39 -0500
Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.2.20041116090329.01c37570@wsxg03.nist.gov>
To: "Karl Dubost" <karl@w3.org>, <www-qa-wg@w3.org>

Hi Karl.
I'll try to answer the questions....


>>1.2C
>>1. Replace.
>>2. refer to 1.2A, be sure that your conformance claim reference 1.2A 
>>references
>>the completed template 1.2B.  Explain how the ICS is referenced.
>
>Lynne: Is it the *new* wording for the second technique. I'm not sure 
>about it.
Its not 'new' wording, but meant to capture the thought.  Rereading the Why 
Care, I think we already capture the thought.  Perhaps what we meant, was 
to explicitly reference 1.2A, that is, Technique 2 (in 1.2A) provides a 
placeholder for the ICS --- which is already indicated in Related.

I don't think you need to do anything.

>>4.2A
>>ACTION: Karl to fix example wording
>
>Lynne: hmmm There's no example. Did it mean find an example?

There is an example - its written more like a story.  So, perhaps we meant 
that it should be rewritten as an Example.  The WG was XSL-FO.


>>4.3A
>>explain what is meant by specification
>>In technique ≠ Change extensions topic to extensibility.  Call it ‘extension’
>
>Lynne, WG: todo: Explain at the start of Specification Guidelines the 
>notion of specification and specification umbrella and put the graphics. I 
>guess in the scope?

I think Dom has already done this.


--lynne
Received on Tuesday, 16 November 2004 14:17:32 GMT

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