Re: QA Conformance Clause Template

At 02:20 PM 8/2/2005 -0400, you wrote:


>Le 05-08-01 à 18:20, Lofton Henderson a écrit :
>>So it looks to me like the list of things that must be present in
>>the claim makes it *well formed*, in the UAAG usage.  If the claim
>>is true as well, then that makes it *valid*.
>
>[...]
>A “valid conformance claim” is, for me, a conformance claim which
>conforms to the requirements defined to write a conformance claim not
>that the conformance claim assess the truth or not.
>
>:)))

Then you disagree with UAAG's usage of "well-formed" versus "valid", when 
applied to conformance claims?  And you propose that QAWG should use 
"valid" to mean the same thing that UAAG uses "well-formed" to mean?

I like UAAG's usage.  Perhaps more important, I don't see any reason for us 
to redefine terms that have been in use in REC UAAG for some years, and 
whose definition is not clearly wrong or unreasonable.

-Lofton.