- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:22:48 -0600
- To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
QAWG -- This is a p.s. to MathML's reply, for which I sent the main part a few days ago. The main part is at: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003Jun/0040.html -Lofton. >Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 14:57:23 -0500 >From: Robert Miner <RobertM@dessci.com> >To: lofton@rockynet.com >Subject: www-math@w3.org >X-RCPT-TO: <lofton@rockynet.com> > > >Hi. > >Oops. I just saw > > > The spec. uses the term 'conformance' whereas the linked guidelines > > document uses the term 'compliance' even though the content of the > > guidelines document is essentially the same as the spec. If there are > > to be separate documents covering conformance/compliance it is > > recommended they use a single term. QAWG prefers 'conformance' > >We had changed the "conformance" to "compliance", but I will now >switch them all back to conformance. > >--Robert > >------------------------------------------------------------------ >Dr. Robert Miner RobertM@dessci.com >MathML 2.0 Specification Co-editor 651-223-2883 >Design Science, Inc. "How Science Communicates" www.dessci.com >------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Friday, 20 June 2003 18:21:47 UTC