Le lundi 14 mars 2005 à 17:12 -0500, Karl Dubost a écrit : > Le 14 mars 2005, à 10:50, Dominique Hazaël-Massieux a écrit : > > 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 Hazaël-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/ W3C/ERCIM mailto:dom@w3.orgReceived 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