Re: SpecGL: rewrite of Strict Conformance

At 09:42 AM 1/17/03 -0500, Mark Skall wrote:
[...]
>>I would like to keep this simple. Basically strict conformance = no 
>>extensions.
>>If people think there is still confusion we could add the following with 
>>respect to DoV
>>"Dimensions of variability (e.g., modules, profiles, levels) are not 
>>extensions if the specification defines them or allows them to be defined."
>
>I like this.  it states unequivocally what some of us have been saying.
>
>>My preference is not to add anything about DoV - I think that is what is 
>>adding to the confusion.
>
>I still think there is confusion, based on the discussion.  I think it's a 
>mind set (the term "strict" in "strict conformance" implies, in some 
>people's mind, an exact match of all implementations, and thus equivalent 
>DOVs).  Thus, I think the sentence you suggested would eliminate any confusion.

+1

-Lofton.