- From: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
- Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2004 18:45:36 -0400
- To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
sounds reasonable to me. At 04:47 AM 8/6/2004, Dominique Hazaël-Massieux wrote: >Le mer 04/08/2004 à 21:49, Karl Dubost a écrit : > > In SpecGL > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-qaframe-spec-20040602/ > > > > We say: > > Good Practice: > > In the conformance clause, define how normative language is > expressed. > >FWIW, most specifications do this in a different section (usually titled >"Terminology"); I'm not sure there is any benefit to make this change. >Said otherwise, I don't think we need to move the RFC keywords >boilerplate in the conformance section; linking the "terminology" >section from there sounds like a good idea, though. > >I wonder if we should revise our GP accordingly. > >Dom >-- >Dominique Hazaël-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/ >W3C/ERCIM >mailto:dom@w3.org >
Received on Friday, 6 August 2004 18:48:45 UTC