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

Re: QA Conformance Clause Template

From: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 19:25:49 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20050802192537.00ba1df0@mailserver.nist.gov>
To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>, Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org

Yes.  I like that - remove the word 'valid'

At 05:02 PM 8/2/2005 -0600, Lofton Henderson wrote:

>At 06:20 PM 8/2/2005 -0400, Karl Dubost wrote:
>>Le 2005-08-02 à 17:30, Lofton Henderson a écrit :
>>[...]
>>"We have certainly to clarify because we don't understand the same
>>thing and then other people might have the same interpretation problem."
>
>Actually, a reasonable way to resolve this question might be to just 
>strike the word "valid".  In the conformance claim context (section 
>2.1.2), it appears four times in SpecGL and once in the template.
>
>So for example, reword GP5:
>
>old:  Require an Implementation Conformance Statement as part of valid 
>conformance claims.
>new:  Require an Implementation Conformance Statement as part of 
>conformance claims.
>
>The word "valid" adds nothing to the statement.  What is it's 
>counter-point?  We don't intend to talk about "invalid conformance 
>claims", and I don't think we ever intended to include two conformance 
>designations for conformance claims, as UAAG did (valid vs. well-formed).
>
>I.e., this would be purely an editorial change and does not alter the 
>substantive meaning.
>
>-Lofton.
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 2 August 2005 23:34:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Tuesday, 2 August 2005 23:34:15 GMT