- From: Eduardo Casais <casays@yahoo.com>
- Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 04:24:59 -0800 (PST)
- To: public-bpwg-ct@w3.org
After a brief look at the first draft of the ICS, I have the following observations:
a) It is very early to comment in detail. The CTG is evolving, and the ICS tables will consequently undergo lots of changes.
b) I wonder why only the SHOULD(NOT) clauses are in the ICS. Conformance requires compliance with the mandatory statements of the CTG as well (i.e. the MUST(NOT) clauses).
c) The conformance clauses should be elementary, in the sense that they deal with only one specific issue. As an example 4.1.4 deals with at least two issues: notification of the user and means of retrieval of a copy. These should be distinguished, as well as the justifications for not fulfilling one or the other requirement.
d) Why is there a N/A column? If this is to indicate branches in the conformance statement (e.g. a SHOULD clause implies other SHOULD clauses, so that whenever the first one is unfulfilled the others are no longer relevant), then a hierarchical structure for the ICS would be preferable. The current clause seems to grant people making submissions the freedom to select whether a clause is applicable or not -- and this is surely not the intent.
E.Casais
Received on Tuesday, 2 December 2008 12:28:19 UTC