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

Re: oddities in our Conformance Model

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 14:17:20 -0600
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20050420140635.036904a0@localhost>
To: Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org

At 06:58 PM 4/20/2005 +0200, Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux wrote:
>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?

I will try to have a proposal before Monday.

>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.

Yes.

-Lofton.
Received on Wednesday, 20 April 2005 22:49:15 GMT

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