- From: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
- Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 19:25:49 -0400
- 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 UTC