RE: conformance and organization

It could be my IDPF-spec bias showing through. It looked like I'd made a mistake having the two together. I'm not strongly wedded to the change.

 

Matt

 

From: Ivan Herman [mailto:ivan@w3.org] 
Sent: August 2, 2017 9:50 AM
To: Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@gmail.com>
Cc: W3C Publishing Working Group <public-publ-wg@w3.org>
Subject: Re: conformance and organization

 

I have a slight preference to hold all conformance issues and terms at one place. There is problem in creating subsections to the 'standard' conformance heading, and then adding a subsection for terminologies that are relevant for a specific spec only. See, for example, the way it was done in the Annotation spec[1].

 

But it is only a preference, nothing more.

 

Ivan

 

[1] https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/#conformance

 

 

 

On 2 Aug 2017, at 15:44, Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@gmail.com <mailto:matt.garrish@gmail.com> > wrote:

 

And a couple of additional notes on some shuffling and starter setup I've done:

 

*       The "conformance" heading is already reserved for explaining normative/informative sections and RFC 2119 keywords. I've moved that section under the introduction along with the terminology.

*       Following a pattern I found in other W3C specs, I've renamed the WP/user agent conformance section to "Conformance Classes".[1] There are a few placeholder-type requirements there for now, but I expect these will change as we get more of the document written.

 

As always, comments welcome.

 

[1]  <https://w3c.github.io/wpub/#conformance-classes> https://w3c.github.io/wpub/#conformance-classes

 

Matt

 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C 
Publishing@W3C Technical Lead

Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153

ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704