- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 15:32:31 -0600
- To: Sandra Martinez <sandra.martinez@nist.gov>
- Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
At 03:45 PM 8/1/02 -0400, Sandra Martinez wrote: >In my opinion, I do not see any conflict in the use of the term "clause" >the glossary specifically define it as a "part" not a section of the >specification and the checkpoint reiterate that position . Ck. 10-2 does >not contradict the idea it only makes a recommendation. If the term >"clause" continues to be misleading, I recommend the term "Conformance >Statement(s)". Unless someone object or argues for an alternative, for the next SpecGL draft, I will leave it as "conformance clause", with clarifications. But I think that the definition in the QA Glossary is faulty or at least misleading (no need to argue about which): "Part of a specification which defines the requirements that must be satisfied to claim conformance to part of the specification". "Part" is singular and suggests one piece, i.e., a section. Replacing it with "a part or collection of parts" is much better, IMO. See next (4-aug) draft when it is ready. -Lofton.
Received on Thursday, 1 August 2002 17:29:30 UTC