- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 12:04:53 -0700
- To: dominique Hazaël-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
- Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
Dom (and others) -- Here is my drafting assignment. There are three sections: Lynne's original draft for the new "amalgamated TOC" checkpoint; my new draft, restoring the minimal list to normativity; change notes, highlighting what I did and why. 1.) LR proposed draft: ===== Checkpoint: Provide a way to find conformance information To fulfill this checkpoint, a specification MUST provide at least one navigation mechanism that allows the reader to locate all conformance-related information in the specification. Rationale: A reader must be able to easily identify and locate all the information necessary to understand the conformance policy and related conformance information without having to read the document from cover to cover. Conformance information includes: the conformance section, conformance clause, and material about conformance variability. A table of contents entry is one way to accomplish this. 2.) Revised draft: ===== Checkpoint 13.4: Provide a fast way to find conformance information To fulfill this checkpoint, a specification MUST provide at least one navigation mechanism that allows the reader to locate all conformance-related information that is relevant to the specification. The mechanism MUST minimally locate: the conformance clause; any conformance section; unambiguous statements about those DoV that the specification employs, from amongst the eight defined in this specification; and requirements for conformance claims. [Ed note. Bullet list might be nicer for the latter.] Rationale: A reader must be able to easily identify and locate all the information necessary to understand the conformance policy and related conformance information without having to read the document from cover to cover. A table of contents entry is one way to accomplish this. In addition to the minimal required set above, other conformance related information such as the ICS, location of test suites, etc, may be helpful to users and implementers. 3.) Change notes ===== a.) I added "fast" to the title. I agreed with Alex's comment on the IG list. No one has yet objected on that thread. If you think this is unwarranted, you can remove it. b.) In the "to fulfill", I changed the final "in the specification" to "that is relevant to the specification". It was a part of the previous (consensus) email and telecon discussion that all conformance bits that are relevant to the functionality of a document/specification must be findable, regardless of how the specification is partitioned. c.) In the "To fulfill", I added a required minimal set that includes exactly those things that we required in TOC before consolidating the TOC checkpoints into this one -- no more, no less. This leaves the functionality unchanged. d.) I added a last sentence to Rationale, including some other possibilities in addition to the minimal list. These have been mentioned in the email, but I didn't add them to the minimal list because that would have changed the functionality from before. (Toss the last sentence if you think this is unwarranted.) -Lofton.
Received on Monday, 4 November 2002 14:04:35 UTC