Re: Monday (28 April) QAWG telecon agenda

At 09:58 AM 4/28/03 -0400, you wrote:

>I'm probably unable to join today's meeting, due to big meetings here.
>You know my opinion: if two characteristics can be independently applied,
>or one can subdivide the other, then they deserve to be separate DoV. The
>main issue now is one of proper explanation.
>.................David Marston

I have been reviewing the issue and thread, is "GL3 a DoV"?.  Of the three 

CP3.1:  "specific universal minimal...." -- definitely DoV-like

CP3.2:  "define any special conformance terms" -- could easily be moved to 

CP3.3:  "justify any DoV that you use" -- this is about the DoV, but isn't 
the part of a definition of a new DoV itself.  (We collected this single CP 
here, replacing the multiple CPX.1, for each DoV GLX.)

David's earlier summary comes to mind -- "result of a tortuous 
evolution".  E.g., the "strict conformance" rules of the Conformance 
Policy, which would contribute to calling GL3 a DoV, migrated to GL9.  Lots 
of other things also went elsewhere or went away.  Recall, we were talking 
about further changes and said -- "let's see what it looks like, it's hard 
to picture what we have left now."

So that is how we got here, and "here" is:  definitely one CP that is 
DoV-like.  The question:  can that CP's requirements be merged into another 
GL somewhere?


Received on Monday, 28 April 2003 10:15:12 UTC