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

Draft Proposed Answer to Ian Hickson: Modesty requirement

From: Lynne S. Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 08:49:18 -0400
Message-ID: <60DE4C815920CA41AF6CC5CFDA9CC849BBBDBE@WSXG03.campus.nist.gov>
To: "'www-qa-wg@w3.org'" <www-qa-wg@w3.org>
Original comment (issue 1050 [1])

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005Jan/0015.html
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005Jan/0015.html> 

 

Thank you for your comment, the QA Working Group disagrees with this
comment. The Quality Assurance Working Group believes that such a good
practice would be inappropriate for the following reasons:

* some of the qualities mentioned in the issue (WAI AAA conformance,
conformance to QA Specification Guidelines, and more generally the
"conformance to other specifications" aspect) can be legitimately
claimed as long as the relevant specifications define a conformance that
can apply to specifications or documents - as this is the case for WCAG
1.0 and the Specification Guidelines; a specification claims of
conformance to other specifications can be deficient the same way a
product can be deficient with regard to its conformance claim, and these
deficiencies should be fixed either during the development process or
through the errata process
* for the other qualities mentioned where objective evaluation criteria
are not available (simple, easy, device-independent), it is unclear that
this defects affects that many - if any - specifications that it would
deserve a good practice in the current version of Specification
Guideline; 

 

[1] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1050
<http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1050> 

 

 
Received on Friday, 29 April 2005 12:49:34 GMT

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