- From: David Marston/Cambridge/IBM <david_marston@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 11:19:37 -0400
- To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
I agree with Sandra that the WG should set priorities for the existence, locatability, and content of conformance clause in a consistent way. I propose that checkpoint 5.4 be dropped, and the explanatory verbiage be moved over to 10.1, which currently has no such verbiage. Of course, the second sentence, a mere cross-reference from Ck 5.4 to GL 10, should be dropped. Once that's done, GL 5 will focus on the establishment of a policy, while GL 10 will focus on the documentation of it. Ck 10.1 is about documenting the policy somewhere: "all specs must address conformance" and thus Priority 1 is justified. Ck 10.2 is about documenting conformance in a particular way. Ck 10.3 is about locatability Ck 10.4 should be added to cover citing dependent specs: "all specs should clarify their perimeter of normativity, even where it includes other specs" -- priority needs to be voted on I hope that we are nearing closure on the GL 10 material. .................David Marston
Received on Thursday, 25 July 2002 11:28:43 UTC