- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 11:41:56 -0700
- To: Dominique Hazaël-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
- Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
The new priority-sort ICS looks good. I have these minor comments: 1.) "Implementation Conformance Statement" does not appear anywhere in the ICS document itself. Should it? The SpecGL text says this in reference to its checklist: "The latter is an Implementation Conformance Statement (ICS) pro-forma for this specification. (See GL12.)" Should something like this appear in the priority-sort checklist also? "This is an...(ICS)..." 2.) Before each table is a statement like, "To be A-conformant with the guidelines, the following checkpoints must be fulfilled:" I suggest adding a mention of priority, e.g., "To be A-conformant with the guidelines, all of the Priority 1 checkpoints must be fulfilled:" Hmmm... I just noticed that before the 2nd table it says, "To be AA-conformant with the guidelines, the following checkpoints must be fulfilled:". Which is slightly misleading (because P1 must also be satisfied). Should say, "To be AA-conformant with the guidelines, all of the Priority 2 checkpoints must be fulfilled (in addition to the above Priority 1 checkpoints):" Similarly for 3rd table. -Lofton. At 04:15 PM 1/29/03 +0100, you wrote: >Le mer 29/01/2003 à 12:34, Dominique Hazaël-Massieux a écrit : > > - the ICS proposed as an appendix is new: > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-qaframe-spec-20030210/qaframe-spec-ics > >Oops, this is broken. The real URI is: >http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2003/01/qaframe-spec/qaframe-spec-ics > >Dom >-- >Dominique Hazaël-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/ >W3C/ERCIM >mailto:dom@w3.org
Received on Wednesday, 29 January 2003 13:40:15 UTC