SpecGL editorial comment from Lofton Henderson on 2005-05-13 (www-qa-wg@w3.org from May 2005)

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 13:18:26 -0600
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20050513131131.021a67b0@rockynet.com>

"Good Practice 05: Require an Implementation Conformance Statement as part 
of valid conformance claims."

Editorial suggestion:   s/valid//

Wording like "...valid conformance claim..." is redundant, because it is 
part of a conformance requirement for "conformance claims".  (So of course 
we're talking about 'valid' or 'conforming' instances.)

-Lofton.

Received on Friday, 13 May 2005 19:18:38 UTC