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

Re: Issue 1144 regarding SpecGL 2.3

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 17:12:53 -0500
Message-Id: <276a5d307312fe2496aa015acec8af03@w3.org>
To: 'www-qa-wg@w3.org' <www-qa-wg@w3.org>

Le 14 mars 2005, ŗ 10:50, Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux a ťcrit :
> 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"?

Another set of other suggestions.
* Provide technical implications of each normative reference
* Provide conformance implications of each normative reference
* Provide technical dependencies on each normative reference
* Provide conformance dependencies on each normative reference

Previous ones:

* The specification should provide sufficient detail in the normative 
references to prevent conflicting interpretations of the requirements 
imposed by reference.
* Provide details about normative references
* Provide detailed normative references.
* When imposing requirements by normative references, prevent conflicts 
and vagueness.
* Provide details on normative references to anticipate conflicts and 
vagueness

-- 
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager
*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***

Received on Tuesday, 15 March 2005 01:35:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:20 GMT