RE: Meaning of "important special case"

I can see what you are saying, but it sort of begs the question, "If it is
so 'important' and 'special', why isn't it _at least_ as important (in terms
of priority) as the checkpoint of which it is a special case?"

I tend to think of a special case as a 'subset' or a closer look at
something and that an 'important' special case would be at least as
important in terms of 'priority'.....

Maybe we should say that checkpoint 9.6 (P3) is an "_unimportant_ special
case" of checkpoint 9.3 (P2)....!?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian Jacobs [mailto:ij@w3.org]
> Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 4:25 PM
> To: Hansen, Eric
> Cc: UA List (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: Meaning of "important special case"
> 
> 
> "Hansen, Eric" wrote:
> > 
> > We may need to think about what we mean when we say that 
> one checkpoint is
> > an "important special case" of another checkpoint.
> > 
> > I have identified one case in which a P3 checkpoint 
> (checkpoint 9.6) is said
> > to be an "important special case" of a P2 checkpoint 
> (checkpoint 9.3).
> > 
> > This seems illogical, since I would think that an important 
> special case of
> > a P2 checkpoint would be either P2 or P1.
> > 
> > I did not find other cases of "important special case" that 
> have this
> > possible contradiction.
> 
> I don't think this is a contradiction. I think that "important special
> case" means that a concept deserves its own checkpoint, but I don't
> think that it's related to priorities.
> 
>  - Ian
> 
> -- 
> Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
> Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
> Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
>

Received on Thursday, 25 January 2001 16:44:33 UTC