Re: QAH draft for Wednesday

I agree and was thinking along those same lines - putting something in the 

At 12:29 PM 4/13/2004, Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux wrote:
>Le mar 13/04/2004 ŗ 18:07, Lofton Henderson a ťcrit :
> > >4. Conformance
> > >Do we really need this section.  I suggest removing it.  It adds nothing
> > >and may set a bad precedent.  Since this is a Handbook, we don't violate
> > >our own rule of having a conformance section in every specification.
> >
> > I was debating this.  On the one hand, we say "Every W3C TR should have a
> > Conformance section".  Are we vulnerable to criticism if the QAH does
> > not?
>Given the type of document QAH is, I think we'd better get rid of the
>conformance section ; of course, it doesn't hurt if we say why in the
>introduction (but keep it short).
>Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux -

Received on Tuesday, 13 April 2004 13:27:23 UTC