W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > July 2003

Re: Cc/pp S&V conformance section

From: Luu Tran <Luu.Tran@Sun.COM>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 17:33:35 -0700
To: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org, "'W3C DIWG'" <w3c-di-wg@w3.org>
Message-id: <3F207ADF.9020800@sun.com>

Hi Lynne,

Thank you for your comments [1] on the CC/PP S&V TR.  The DIWG has 
prepared an updated draft [2] which we believe addresses your points:

> 1. What is meant by 'extracts appropriate information'.  Since 
> 'appropriate' is vague and subjective, can this be made more specific?

Unfortunately, what information a producer extracts is very application 
specific.  The best we could do is "extracts CC/PP information".

> 2. It may be clearer to be more explicit regarding a consumer's support 
> (or non support) for Appendix B.  If I understand correctly, support for 
> the RDF Schema is mandatory for validating consumers.

What we mean is that consumers need not be schema-aware processors in 
the sense that they can be configured with the schema format given.  The 
information contained within the schema must be understood by the 
consumer, but the format used to configure the consumer can be 
application specific.

> 3. Editorial:  Change 'all' to 'any' in non-validating: A consumer is a 
> CC/PP conformant non-validating consumer when it does not reject all 
> non-conformant CC/PP documents.

We've changed the definition to avoid both terms since we weren't happy 
with either.

> 4. Comments on 5.5.2 Well-formed.
> Add to the list of information to be included in a claim, the name 
> (identify) of the implementation to which the claim is being made. Also, 
> a version, date, or other identifier should be included to uniquely 
> identify the implementation.

We've added this.

Please let us know if the new draft looks ok.


Received on Thursday, 24 July 2003 20:33:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:43:34 UTC