- From: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 09:24:46 -0400
- To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
Nevermind - I just figured it out. lynne At 07:42 AM 6/10/2003, Lynne Rosenthal wrote: >It would be acceptable to add more text to the discussion - however, my >comment about your suggestion is HUH? I don't understand it. It seems >very complex. Can you suggest something much more simpler and straight >forward? > >lynne > > > >>>We decided that CP 3.1 requires that the minimal requirements be a >>>collection in 1 place rather than distributed in the document. >>> >>>Proposal is to add a sentence to the existing rationale - so that it >>>reads as follows: >>> >>>Rationale: the reader must be able to recognize any minimum >>>functionality, complexity or support that applies to conforming products >>>of a specific class. It helps the reader find these requirements by >>>presenting them as a collection, in one place rather than distributed >>>throughout the document. >>> >>> >>>Any Comments? >> >>I think that it would be useful, in the Discussion, to add a little more >>detail, especially to the "distributed throughout the document" >>notion. Specifically, capture some of the reasoning that we went through >>(in telecon) in order to conclude that this should be Priority >>2. Something like, "If the specification is written in conformance to >>other requirements in this SpecGL, then any universal minima will be >>implicitly represented amongst the specific conformance requirements of >>the individual CoPs. In principle, then, the universal minima can be >>derived. However, such derivation could be complex and error-prone." >> >>Question. If we believe this to be true, then does this have any bearing >>on the question of LC-95 -- is GL3 a DoV? >> >>-Lofton.
Received on Tuesday, 10 June 2003 09:25:07 UTC