Ian Hickson wrote: > Because whether they comply is not cut and dry. For example, SVG 1.2 > claims to comply to AWWW. But IMHO it doesn't. Since the AWWW document explicitly disclaims having any conformance requirements, it's not a specification. So that's not a compelling example. In my opinion, if compliance is not cut and dry, then that's a failure of the specifications. If specifications frequent fail in this way after adoption of the QA Framework as a Recommendation (if and when that happens), that's a failure of the QA Framework - not specifically the content, since marketing of the Frameork is a separate issue (and probably much more relevant to the success of the Framework). GaryReceived on Friday, 4 February 2005 03:15:29 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:33:52 GMT