W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa@w3.org > February 2005

Re: QASG last call comments: Modesty requirement

From: Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 15:15:28 +0100
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: Gary Feldman <g1list_1a@marsdome.com>, www-qa@w3.org
Message-Id: <1107526528.10233.242.camel@stratustier>
Le vendredi 04 fťvrier 2005 ŗ 14:04 +0000, Ian Hickson a ťcrit :
> Now, Unicode, QASG, Charmod, and other specifications that other 
> specifications are likely to claim conformance to are maybe not on that 
> level of complexity, but I still don't see that it is sensible to claim 
> conformance to them. Why would anyone _want_ co claim conformance, anyway? 

For the same reason you want a vendor to say whether its products
conforms to such or such specification; when a vendor claims that it is
conformant to a specification, you can have certain expectations for
that product, and if they're not met, you can get back to the vendor
with reports of non-conformance as being bugs in the products.

Similarly, some groups in W3C have as success criteria for their
deliverables to conform with SepcGL; so we would expect them to claim
they conform after they checked they did, and we would report any
non-compliance as an issue for the spec.

Dom
-- 
Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/
W3C/ERCIM
mailto:dom@w3.org


Received on Friday, 4 February 2005 14:15:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:40:36 UTC