W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa@w3.org > April 2003

[www-qa] <none>

From: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 15:53:39 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: www-qa@w3.org
Discussion on applicability/Normative exclusion (26, 80).
Ian suggests we label the "It is not applicable if..." as Normative 
inclusion/exclusion as in UAAG 1.0

 From UAAG 1.0
Normative inclusions and exclusions. These are qualifications about what is 
required (inclusion) or is not required (exclusion) to satisfy the 
checkpoint. Some of the inclusions are reminders about what may be required 
for conformance:
When it might be ambiguous whether a checkpoint makes requirements for 
content only, the user agent user interface only, or both together, a label 
will state the intended scope. See the section on requirements for content, 
user agent features, or both for more information.
When a checkpoint may be excluded from a conformance profile, it is 
identified by a conformance profile label. See the section on conformance 
profiles for more information on how a user agent may conform to this 
document even though it does not satisfy every checkpoint.
(Normative when present)

 From a UAAG checkpoint, this is what it looks like:

Normative Inclusion and exclusion:
When satisfying this checkpoint for a real-time presentation, the user 
agent may discard packets that continue to arrive after the construction of 
the time-independent view (e.g., when paused or after the construction of a 
static view).
This checkpoint does not apply when the user agent cannot recognize the 
time interval in the presentation format, or when the user agent cannot 
control the timing (e.g., because it is controlled by the server).
     This checkpoint excludes the requirements of checkpoint x.x

Our Conformance Requirements contain Inclusion statements and some of them 
contain exclusion statements.  It is not clear that introducing this notion 
will make our document clearer.  IMO it doesn't change the essence of what 
we have, it would just be a label on what we already have.  It could look 
    "Conformance Requirements: the specification MUST......
    Exclusion: this checkpoint does not apply if there are no deprecated 

It would only involve including an explanation of  exclusion in the Sec1.5 
Understanding and using this document.

Received on Monday, 21 April 2003 15:56:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:40:32 UTC