- From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2005 01:56:33 +0200
- To: shadi@w3.org, public-wai-ert@w3.org
- Cc: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Proposed responses inline... > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [Moderator Action] EARL requirements 1st WD > Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 17:28:44 +0000 > From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com> > Substantively: > > [[ > F02 > EARL 1.0 will provide mechanisms to relate test results with the > specific location within the subject that triggered the result where > applicable. > ]] > I suggest that requirement F02 should be demoted from "will" to > "should". This is a complex requirement that would be good to meet, > however I do not believe that EARL would have failed if this requirement > cannot be met, so the lower status of "should" is appropriate. I suggest that we maintain the must, because this is important to our use cases, but note that these may not be reliable or even applicable in all circumstances > Editorially: > I suggest that > [[ > F05 > EARL 1.0 may support backward compatibility of the language with > previous versions published in earlier Working Drafts. > ]] > be listed as a non-requirement, or not listed at all, since the > rather particularly definition of may, seems to mean non-requirement. I suggest that we keep this in the document - it is something to aspire to, but not necessary to explain if we do not meet it. Knowing a little more of what we would like is, IMHO valuable. for measuring whether we succeeded, and may assis t someone reviewing our work who can tell us a relatively easy way to achieve what we would like but didn't work out ourselves to realise that such comments are indeed welcome. > [I assume further prettification comments are not interesting for this > document] I agree -- Charles McCathieNevile chaals@opera.com hablo español - je parle français - jeg lærer norsk Web dreams are free: http://www.opera.com/download
Received on Friday, 7 October 2005 00:03:05 UTC