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

Re: oddities in our Conformance Model

From: Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 18:58:03 +0200
To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1114016283.24580.131.camel@stratustier>
Le mercredi 20 avril 2005 ŗ 18:06 +0200, Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux a
ťcrit :
>  It could also be solved by classifying the GPs as
> > "normative, optional", saying that it's better than plain Conforming
> > to satisfy as many GPs as possible, but not defining any designation
> > other than "Conforming" ( == "does all Rqts").
> 
> I like the latter approach; of course we need to find the right wording
> for it... Would you have a draft proposal?

If we go that way, we also need to make sure to update the text in the
introduction of the document, where Good Practices are described as
informative (or non-normatives) in several places.

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


Received on Wednesday, 20 April 2005 16:58:05 GMT

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