- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 07:42:12 -0600
- To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
I did miss something. The last parenthetical comment on Susan's "Proposal" -- need to define "terms" (or did she mean "conformance terms"?). Alternatives: 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.) -Lofton. At 05:06 PM 4/21/2003 -0600, Lofton Henderson wrote: >http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/lc-issues#x64 > >Unless I'm missing something, this is a simple editorial glitch. The >words "any conformance terms used in" are missing from the beginning of >ConfReqs. > >Proposal: Close the issue by adding the missing words. > >Objections? > >-Lofton. >
Received on Tuesday, 22 April 2003 09:48:05 UTC