Le lundi 14 mars 2005 à 10:42 -0500, david_marston@us.ibm.com a écrit : > I then proposed an alternative that focused on what could be measured > in the document: > "The specification should provide sufficient detail in the normative > references to prevent conflicting interpretations of the requirements > imposed by reference." > > Dom then asks for it to be shortened, such as: > "Provide details about normative references" As Lofton mentioned, we can put more details as what we mean in our "what does it mean" section. > I don't think that is complete enough, because it doesn't include the > goal. When we ask whether the Good Practice was followed, we mean > something specific about the provided details, namely that they were > used to qualify the other spec as needed for this purpose. The details > are sufficient when there is no way for an implementer to twist the > provisions of the other spec for selfish purposes. How about something > like this? > "When imposing requirements by normative references, prevent conflicts > and vagueness." It's going in the right direction, but I'm not fully satisfied yet; what about: "Provide details on normative references to anticipate conflicts and vagueness"? Dom -- Dominique Hazaël-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/ W3C/ERCIM mailto:dom@w3.orgReceived on Monday, 14 March 2005 15:50:10 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:20 GMT