Re: proposed closure of LC-64 -- oops

I did miss something.  The last parenthetical comment on Susan's "Proposal" 
-- need to define "terms" (or did she mean "conformance terms"?).


1.) no need, it's clear
2.) yes, define "terms" (her suggestion)
3.) yes, define "conformance terms" (what she meant?)
4.) don't need to define, but give a couple of better "for example" than 
current text.

Suggestion.  How about giving this to our Glossary team (i.e., the owners 
of the QA Glossary), for a proposal, due Friday?

(Btw, I think there is some merit to Susan's comment.  This is not so 
obvious that I am able to quickly reel off a couple of "for example" of 
conformance terms, special or SpecGL-standard.)


At 05:06 PM 4/21/2003 -0600, Lofton Henderson wrote:

>Unless I'm missing something, this is a simple editorial glitch.  The 
>words "any conformance terms used in" are missing from the beginning of 
>Proposal:  Close the issue by adding the missing words.

Received on Tuesday, 22 April 2003 09:48:05 UTC