- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 09:27:52 -0600
- To: David Marston/Cambridge/IBM <david_marston@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
At 11:00 PM 8/19/02 -0400, David Marston/Cambridge/IBM wrote: >[...] > >>First of all, we leave GL 10.3 alone, and it has Priority 1. > > >To be clear: you are recommending to change it to P1, right? > >(Currently it is P2 and I didn't see any change order in last week's > >minutes.) > >Maybe I lost track of the changing priorities. If it's Priority 2, >then it doesn't get involved in our problem. What was it under >GL 10 that was causing our problem? Anyway, I'll go along with >whatever the WG wants to do about priorities. I posted the text with P2 (unchanged). If you (or anyone) want it different for publication, please bring it up during Wed telecon. >[,,,] > >There is an interesting subtlety here. Is 3.1 "not applicable" if > >profiles are not supported? Or is it a dependent checkpoint -- "yes" > >if 10.5 is "yes".... > >I don't want to be subtle, so here we go: A checkpoint (like 4.1) that >says "Address use of ___" always applies. Checkpoint 10.5 is where we >let older specs off the hook for the negative statements. What I posted yesterday is a little different. Vague, actually (more or less on purpose). Let's talk about this point on Wednesday, and decide what we want to say for publication. (This is actually a small issue, compared to others that we're seeking feedback about.) -Lofton.
Received on Tuesday, 20 August 2002 11:27:32 UTC