- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 21:01:08 +0200
- To: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
- Cc: www-qa@w3.org
On Friday, May 13, 2005, 8:37:11 PM, Karl wrote: KD> Dear Chris, KD> You replied to that your answer was partially satisfied. We discussed KD> about your concerns at the last QA WG meeting [1] KD> See Below the resolution KD> Le 05-05-03 à 12:21, Chris Lilley a écrit : >> On Tuesday, May 3, 2005, 5:03:49 PM, Karl wrote: >> KD> Original comments (issues 1151, 1143, and part of 1158): >> Thank you for the response. It partially satisfies the concerns I >> raised. >> >> A first publication of a specification can still have deprecated >> features, if there was a previous poorly documented, undocumented, or >> defined-by-implementation version. Does your wording imply that a >> specification at version 1.0 can still be conformant even if it >> does not >> state "There are no deprecated features"? >> [...] >> Requirement 12: Identify deprecated features. >> might be better as >> Requirement 12: Identify deprecated features or state that there are >> none. KD> Our resolution is: KD> * We will reword the text to make the deprecation possible at version KD> 1.0 of a technology KD> * We will NOT change the requirement text for it KD> * We will propose a technique to take into account your request. That sounds fine to me. KD> Thanks. KD> [1] http://www.w3.org/mid/ KD> 5.1.1.5.2.20050510084627.00aa63a8@mailserver.nist.gov -- Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org Chair, W3C SVG Working Group W3C Graphics Activity Lead
Received on Friday, 13 May 2005 19:01:17 UTC