- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 08:35:18 -0600
- To: skall@nist.gov
- Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
At 09:27 PM 8/15/2002 -0400, skall@nist.gov wrote: >Quoting Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>: >[...] > > What about "...provide your own definition"? Why do we say that? What > > is > > an example/scenario where it would make sense? > >Almost none. The only thing that we may have meant is that the definition >talks about requirements in the specification as in "only requirements >defined >in the specification". If one was defining strict conformance for a level or >a profile they would talk about "requirements in the level/profile" >instead of >specification. So what do you recommend: * drop the sentence(s) * qualify as you said -- specs might possibly narrowing *scope* of definition (or its applicability) to a module, profile, level etc * other. (I was wondering, as I read it, about this: a spec maybe could have a stricter definition that tightens up ambiguities in our definition, like discretionary items, etc -- we had a previous discussion about the latter, inconclusive so far -- it will come back later, I think). -Lofton.d
Received on Friday, 16 August 2002 10:37:38 UTC