- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 14:59:38 -0600
- To: David Marston/Cambridge/IBM <david_marston@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
At 11:18 AM 8/2/02 -0400, David Marston/Cambridge/IBM wrote: >[...] > >I've been out of things for awhile - so, I don't understand what the > >problem is. Conformance clause has been an accepted and widely used > >term. What is the objection to using the 'clause'. Is there really a > >confusion over the use of the term or are we anticipating that people > >aren't able to figure out what is meant. > >It's just about what document structure you have if you satisfy the >checkpoint to have the necessary conformance verbiage present, but you >don't satisfy the checkpoint to have a separate conformance section. >You don't want that verbiage spread all over, a sentence here and a >sentence there, due to the findability checkpoint. Maybe if QAWG were >to do priority resetting on those 10.x checkpoints right away, We could put this on next (6-aug) telecon. The general plan is to work substantive SpecGL on 6-aug, with an extra telecon on 13-aug for all priorities, and any leftover substantive. >it >would clear up what possibilities are allowed beneath the ideal of "an >easily-findable conformance section that points to all pertinent >parts of the spec and provides a packaged description for use by a >test lab." It is an idea to consider, unifying the checkpoints. The single reason that I can see for the P1 "conformance clause" (possibly scattered) and the P2 "single section" is: allow level-A compliance for legacy specifications, that might have gotten all of the right stuff, but in 2-3 different subsections. This could be handled with a single checkpoint as well. The can be multiple, bulleted individual requirements under a single checkpoint, so the "single section" bullet could have a legacy-specification exemption (i.e., "not applicable for those specifications which pre-date this document"). -Lofton.
Received on Friday, 2 August 2002 16:56:32 UTC