- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 20 Mar 2002 16:31:50 -0600
- To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Cc: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>, spec-prod@w3.org, www-qa-wg@w3.org
On Wed, 2002-03-13 at 11:38, Lofton Henderson wrote: [...] > Regarding http://www.w3.org/Guide/Reports [...] > "The Webmaster must have confirmation from the Team contact that: > 1.The status section is novel and complete per the guidelines (per > April 1999 Chairs meeting)" > > where "guidelines" is a link to Reports#status (containing lots of > bold-face "must"). So the way I would read this is that at least the > Reports#status stuff is normative (the same #status stuff is in Manual of > Style, the apparent successor to "Reports"). Yup... good catch. > I think this could all be simplified by merging the pieces together, with > clear indication of normative/informative status of the various bits. I still don't prefer that approach, but I agree it's not right as is. Hmm... -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 20 March 2002 17:31:23 UTC