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

Re: answer to TAG comment on Conformance clause optionality

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 19:20:40 +0200
Message-ID: <1818256595.20050503192040@w3.org>
To: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Cc: www-qa@w3.org

On Tuesday, May 3, 2005, 5:18:29 PM, Karl wrote:

KD> Dear Chris,

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

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

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


KD> As a response to your comment, the QA Working Group has accepted your
KD> comment and has used your example [2]:
KD>        On [date of the publication], this specification [name of the
KD>    specification], edited by [name of the publishing entity],  
KD> explains in
KD>    section [link to where] why it does not need a conformance clause and
KD>    is thus conformant to Specification Guidelines WD, November 22, 2004
KD>    published at http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-qaframe-spec-20041122/.



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

Excellent, thank you.




-- 
 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead
Received on Tuesday, 3 May 2005 17:20:49 UTC

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