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

TAG comment: optionality of conformance

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 17:57:03 -0500
Message-ID: <1927082559.20050301175703@w3.org>
To: www-qa@w3.org

Hello www-qa,

The specification does in fact have a large optional part. "the
conformance clause may be an explanation of why there is no "conformance
to this document" and may be presented in another section rather than in
a separate conformance section." This large optional part (either make
this claim that there is no conformance, OR meet all of the
Requirements) is not reflected in the proforma. It would probably be
better to provide language for a claim that specifically addresses this
case. For example

  On [date of the publication], this specification [name of the
  specification], edited by [name of the publishing entity], explains in
  section [link to where] why it does not need a conformance clause and
  is thus conformant to Specification Guidelines WD, November 22, 2004
  published at http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-qaframe-spec-20041122/.

-- 
 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead
Received on Tuesday, 1 March 2005 23:30:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 12:14:01 GMT