W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > April 2005

[draft] answer to TAG comment on Conformance clause optionality

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 14:36:14 -0400
Message-Id: <d3e76d0358fd916181bfffad5a5589b3@w3.org>
To: 'www-qa-wg@w3.org' <www-qa-wg@w3.org>
Original comment (issue 1145 [1]):
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005Mar/0017.html


As a response to your comment, the QA Working Group has accepted your 
comment and has used your example [2]:
	  On [date of the publication], this specification [name of the
   specification], edited by [name of the publishing entity], explains in
   section [link to where] why it does not need a conformance clause and
   is thus conformant to Specification Guidelines WD, November 22, 2004
   published at http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-qaframe-spec-20041122/.



[1] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1145
[2] 
http://www.w3.org/QA/Group/2005/02/qaframe-spec/#specgl-claim-wording




-- 
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager
*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***

Received on Tuesday, 19 April 2005 19:21:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:20 GMT