- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 14:42:04 -0700
- To: Dominique Hazaël-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
- Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
I think this is an improvement over the previous version. I'm pondering David's comments, but in the meantime a purely editorial comment... At 05:25 PM 1/28/03 +0100, Dominique Hazaël-Massieux wrote: >Le jeu 23/01/2003 à 15:45, Sandra Martinez a écrit : > > AI-2003-0122-2: Dominique to formulate text for issue AR-023 on CP 8.4. > > > > (DH): A policy statement should be added to the checkpoint, adding a > > testable aspect in this draft. > > > > (DM): Would you provide the verbiage? > > > > (DH): I will try to come up with some verbiage to discuss offline via > e-mail. >Here is my proposed verbiage for checkpoint 8.4: >""" >Promote consistent handling of discretionary choices. > >Conformance Requirement: the specification MUST document the identified >policies for handling discretionary items "choices", not "items" ("d. items" come in three flavors, of which "d. choices" is one -- we're talking about "d. choices" here). >Rationale: this helps identifying where the specification could actually >factorize these policies, so that implementations could handle >consistently discretionary items again, "choices". > - users have an expectation of what to >expect and should be able to count on getting the same results under the >same conditions with a given implementation. > >Note that the Working Group believes that given identical conditions, >the effect of a discretionary choice should be consistent within a >single implementation, and thus, that specifications should enforce it. >""" > >Dom >-- >Dominique Hazaël-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/ >W3C/ERCIM >mailto:dom@w3.org
Received on Tuesday, 28 January 2003 16:39:29 UTC