- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 12:40:23 -0700
- To: Mark Skall <mark.skall@nist.gov>
- Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
At 01:51 PM 12/4/02 -0500, Mark Skall wrote: >>[...] >>>Since Karl is the 2nd person to assert that SpecGL does not have an ICS, >>>it raises a question about the checkpoint (which I asked earlier): in >>>order to satisfy it, you MUST publish an ICS. MUST it be labelled as an >>>ICS? Or SHOULD it be labelled as an ICS? Or ...? I.e., SpecGL's ICS is >>>labelled as a "Checklist". Does SpecGL pass or fail? > >It fails. Not only is it not labelled as an ICS, Should be, and will be in future SpecGL draft. >it's not included with the guideline I don't understand this. Do you mean that it must be included as an integral part of SpecGL? In 12.1, it just says "include or reference an ICS". SpecGL does that (see right after the SpecGL TOC), although it is not labelled as ICS (and we agree that it ought to be). >AND we don't tell implementers (i.e., spec developers)to fill it out. That is a different checkpoint (12.2), requiring that it be filled out by implementers. I was focusing on whether we satisfied 12.1. -Lofton.
Received on Wednesday, 4 December 2002 14:39:16 UTC