- From: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
- Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2003 14:51:56 -0400
- To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
Your help is requested on the CP about consistency of Discretionary Items I was tasked with taking DM's input (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2003Apr/0030.html) and rewriting the CP. I, however, am not sure I understand DM's input or the discussion we had on it.... So, I propose the following 3 choices. Please comment on which you think is the right direction and then, any edits are welcome. Choice 1. CP 5.4 Promote consistent handling of discretionary items ConfReq: The specification MUST indicate the rationale for discretionary items that do not follow the general policy for handling discretionary items as derived from CP 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3. Rationale: The general policy helps to ensure that implementations can consistently handle discretionary choice 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. The general policy may not be applicable to all discretionary items. In these cases, a rationale helps to highlight the divergence. Choice 2 CP5.4 The specification MUST provide rules for consistent terminology about discretionary items and MUST provide a rationale for discretionary items that do not follow the rules Rationale: This helps to ensure that implementations can consistently handle discretionary choice 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. It also helps to propagate the rules about discretionary items onto the implementations, especially when an implementation could offer choices to the user. Choice 3 Remove this CP Comments welcome and needed. Lynne
Received on Thursday, 4 September 2003 15:07:04 UTC