- From: Dominique Hazaël-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
- Date: 09 Aug 2002 09:31:12 +0200
- To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
Le jeu 08/08/2002 à 19:07, Lofton Henderson a écrit : > I haven't tackled the verbiage of the CK11.1 yet. But I decided to edit > our conformance clause to "try it out". I realized that there are really > two separate aspects: > > 1.) the verbiage we use to describe conformance (degrees, categories, > designations, [NOT] levels); > 2.) the actual conformance labels. > > E.g., we could say: > > "SpecGL defines three degrees of conformance, whose labels are: 1st > degree, 2nd ..." > > or we could say: > > "SpecGL defines three degrees of conformance, whose labels are: "A > Conforming", "AA Con..." > > Please read the attached, and reply with your preference. (Altho' I prefer > the second, the first does allow us to say, "let's give 'em the Third > Degree". Okay, bad pun.) I'm fine with keeping the labels "A Conforming", ... Dom -- Dominique Hazaël-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/ W3C/INRIA mailto:dom@w3.org
Received on Friday, 9 August 2002 03:31:21 UTC