- From: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
- Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 09:58:04 -0500
- To: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>, www-qa-wg@w3.org
Number CP 1.1 Issue: Where does "beginning of the document" refers to. Discussion: be more precise Decision: Replace ConfReq with the TA. Number: CP 1.2 Issue: examples or use cases or a mixture of both? within the spec or a link? Discussion: The intent is that any combination is allowed - we really mean, and/or. "provide" is linked to its definition - allowing for inclusion within the spec or a link from the spec. Decision: Change ConfReq to be "and/or". Nothing needs to be done with respect to "provide". > Number: CP 2.2 > Issue: Dependance on the execution 2.1 Discussion: separate from 2.1 so that if fail 2.1, can still pass 2.2 > Decision: reword the Conformance Requirements and the test > assertions - s/in CP 2.1/in the specification/. Also add a Discussion in > ConfReq, indicating the relationship to CP 2.1 > > Number: CP 2.3: > Issue: Missing the second MUST of the conformance req. > Decision: Reformulate the test assertion accordingly to the > missing MUST. Add: List all specification categories from the list, if > NOT on list, identify and define your own. > Number: CP 2.4 > Issue: other dimensions seems too general and might confuse people. > Decision: s/other dimensions/other dimensions that are > used/. In TA, remove last sentence, /if the spec contains ONLY ONE ...." Number CP 2.4 and applicable to other CPs Issue: not applicability statement Discussion: can we remove this statement by rewriting the ConfReq, e.g., "If the spec addresses more than 1 COP, then..." Yes, but loses readability and simplicity. Could create a label, (e.g., Exceptions, Normative inclusions/exclusions (UAAG uses), Applicability) which would be included in every CP to handle exceptions - e.g., no exceptions, except if only 1 COP Decision: None yet.
Received on Friday, 19 December 2003 09:58:25 UTC