W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa@w3.org > August 2002

Re: conformance vs. compliance

From: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 10:42:43 -0600 (MDT)
To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
cc: Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux <dom@w3.org>, Mark Skall <mark.skall@nist.gov>, <Art.Barstow@nokia.com>, <www-qa@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.44.0208091035330.25790-100000@measurement-factory.com>

On Fri, 9 Aug 2002, Lofton Henderson wrote:

> To answer Alex's later suggestion "explain why" -- I would think it
> enough to say that we're deprecating it within the Framework
> documents (hence within QA) for the sake of consistent terminology
> (see SpecGL checkpoint 13.4, "Use the same words to express the same
> ideas."). If it is felt necessary that we explain why we chose
> conformance versus compliance, we could point to the (currently
> greater) legacy of abuse of "compliance".

And, perhaps, add a checkpoint discouraging marketing of conformant
implementations so that "conformance" does not get abused in a few
years?

	Bad marketing folks SHOULD use "Compliant with W3C
	standards" terminology, while the good people should use
	"Conformant with W3C recommendations". [Priority3]


Alex.
Received on Friday, 9 August 2002 12:42:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 12:13:59 GMT