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

answer to TAG comment on Conformance clause optionality

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 11:18:29 -0400
Message-Id: <22C26C3A-6975-427E-88A8-8A45CE5BA26F@w3.org>
Cc: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
To: www-qa@w3.org

Dear Chris,

Thanks for your comments on the Last Call version of the QA Framework:
Specification Guidelines[0] - 22 November 2004

After two weeks from now (on May 18, 2005), the lack of answer will  
be considered as if you had accepted the comment.

Original comment (issue 1145 [1]):
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005Mar/0017.html


As a response to your comment, the QA Working Group has accepted your  
comment and has used your example [2]:
       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/.



[0] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-qaframe-spec-20041122/
[1] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1145
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-qaframe-spec-20050428/#specgl-claim- 
wording


-- 
Karl Dubost
QA Working Group Chair
http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/
Received on Tuesday, 3 May 2005 15:18:46 UTC

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