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

Re: Issue 1144 regarding SpecGL 2.3

From: Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 14:38:20 +0100
To: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1111412300.27604.73.camel@stratustier>
Le lundi 14 mars 2005 ŗ 17:12 -0500, Karl Dubost a ťcrit :
> 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

We still haven't reached a conclusion on this, have we? Maybe we need to
discuss it on the call? As a reminder, we need a less workflow-oriented
version of GP 08 "Do systematic reviews of normative references and
their implications."

Dom
-- 
Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/
W3C/ERCIM
mailto:dom@w3.org


Received on Monday, 21 March 2005 13:38:23 GMT

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