- From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 08:19:56 +0900
- To: James Graham <jg307@cam.ac.uk>
- Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Dave Singer <singer@apple.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>, wai-liaison@w3.org, Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>
Le 13 mai 2008 à 07:51, James Graham a écrit : > I don't think making a big deal of the distinction between machine > checkable and non-machine checkable conformance requirements is very > useful in the context of HTML. http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/#what-conform It is not that much about machine or non-machine checkable. It is really about class of products. The issue is that the class or products are defined at the top of the spec but are rarely tied to specific requirements in the specification prose. Once the Class of Product have been defined, we have a grid for reading the spec. * I'm a browser implementer, I read the spec. What are the conformance requirements for my product? * I'm an authoring tool implementer, I read the spec. What are the conformance requirements for my product? * etc. * QA Framework: Specification Guidelines http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/ * Variability in Specifications http://www.w3.org/TR/spec-variability/ -- Karl Dubost - W3C http://www.w3.org/QA/ Be Strict To Be Cool
Received on Monday, 12 May 2008 23:20:37 UTC