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

Re: LC-67 leftover -- MUST use MUST?

From: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 11:29:37 -0600 (MDT)
To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
cc: www-qa@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.53.0306271122100.79070@measurement-factory.com>

On Fri, 27 Jun 2003, Lofton Henderson wrote:

> Our definition of "conformance requirement", discussed and agreed at
> Crete f2f, is something like this:  "A statement of a condition or
> conditions that are necessary, recommended, or optional for
> conformance [...of blah to blah.]"

How about more simple and general: "A condition affecting conformance
of ..."? This leaves it up to the spec to define whether, say, MAYs
affect conformance. For example, MAYs do not affect conformance of
HTTP implementations. If condition X has an effect on conformance,
then X is a CR. If it does not, then it is not.

> Okay, so is a TA a form of CR, or not?  To me, TA seems to fit the
> definition of CR.  Personally, I have always thought of a TA as a
> particular kind of CR, i.e., all TAs are CRs (but not all CRs are
> TAs).

To me, CR is what "Conformance Section" of a spec defines them to be.
And that section MUST be present and MUST define CRs.

Received on Friday, 27 June 2003 13:29:40 UTC

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