Re: [Issue-SpecGL] Conformance wording and SpecGL

sounds reasonable to me.

At 04:47 AM 8/6/2004, Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux wrote:
>Le mer 04/08/2004 ŗ 21:49, Karl Dubost a ťcrit :
> > 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 HazaŽl-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/
>W3C/ERCIM
>mailto:dom@w3.org
>

Received on Friday, 6 August 2004 18:48:45 UTC