- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 13:36:21 -0600
- To: Sandra Martinez <sandra.martinez@nist.gov>
- Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
Thanks, Sandra. Two small comments... At 09:50 AM 10/22/02 -0400, Sandra Martinez wrote: >[...] >Ckpt. 10.3: Follow Web Accessibility Initiative and Internationalization >Guidelines." Do we really want to get on the business to make other GL >apply? Is this within the scope of the SpecGL? > > This particular checkpoint is mentioned in the introduction > section of the SpecGL. The point was more like: "Pubrules and Style Manual are mentioned in the Introduction, as other documents needing attention in addition to SpecGL, and WAI and Internationalization could be handled similarly." [My draft Intro doesn't mention WAI and IG currently, nor this checkpoint.] >Lynne recommended the deletion of this checkpoint and the modification of >the introduction section to include more information in this particular >area. Editors will draft appropriate text for the introduction. > > Deviations from the agenda; Dom, asked for comments in the > introduction section of the SpecGL. Lynne, requested the WG to send > comments on the introduction section. Lofton added that the group should > also look at the @@ in the SpecGL by midweek. He commented that in the > process of rewriting the SpecGL, guidelines 14 is collapsing with GL-15, > therefore removing the granular grammar related checkpoints. The > relationship between automatic generation and granular grammar is lost. > Loftton move the information related to granular grammar to an appendix > so it would not be lost. Dimitris volunteered to generate appropriate > writing on the subject. > >Ckpt. 12.1: "If an ICS is included as part of the specification, indicate >whether it is a normative or informative part of the >specification." How an ICS can be normative? To what class of product >would it apply? > >Lofton agreed with Dom on the comment that ICS can't be normative. Lynne >explained that the inclusion of an ICS is beneficial in claiming >conformance especially for implementations that implement discretionary >behaviors and values, for example XSLT specification where many options >and choices are allowed. DOM still not sure if the SpecGL should required >ICS. Lofton added that it is not within our scope to address conformance >claim but that under some conditions it might be useful to have an ICS. Hmm, perhaps I mis-spoke. I think it *is* within our scope to define how to make conformance claims (ie., I agree with revised CK11.2 that imposes minimal content requirements on conformance claims), and I think that SpecGL should require that specs not only have an ICS (if only a default sample), but also in principle could require that specs require those as part of the minimal content of a conformance claim. [Note. I said "in principle could", because I haven't made up my mind yet, whether or not it *should* -- however, it is a possibility.] >Andrew stated that he sees it at the role of the certification >organization to have the ICS, so it would not belong in the SpecGL. It >was suggested the checkpoint to be moved to the TestGL. Kirill >agreed. Mark did not agree and added that requirements belong to the >specification not to a test suite, and stated that the ICS does belong in >the SpecGL. Lofton felt that this discussion was leading to reopening >issue 96 and decided to take the discussion offline. All for now, -Lofton.
Received on Wednesday, 23 October 2002 15:36:18 UTC