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

Re: QA Conformance Clause Template

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 15:30:49 -0600
Message-Id: <>
To: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org

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.

Received on Tuesday, 2 August 2005 21:49:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:14:35 UTC