Re: [SpecGL Draft] A2 Require an Implementation Conformance Statement (ICS) as part of valid conformance claims.

Agree.  This is mostly captured in the previous GP, and what isn't, can 
easily be included.  See my comments (to be sent soon) on the other ICS GP

-Lynne


At 04:02 PM 8/10/2004, Karl Dubost wrote:
>Good Practice:
>         Require an Implementation Conformance Statement (ICS) as part of 
> valid conformance claims.
>
>         Do we want to put this as a good practice, as it was said in the 
> previous version of the text.
>
>         """
>         This simply puts together the previous
>         two good practices. Not only could the specification
>         provide an ICS proforma for implementors, but it could
>         require it to be linked from its standardized conformance
>         claim template.
>         @@should we include discussion on - the meaning/value
>         of a conformance claim may change as the spec
>         and tests evolve
>         """
>
>What do you think? If you look at the previous one, I have said it in why 
>care? but if you think it's valuable, I will write it with more details.
>
>--
>Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
>W3C Conformance Manager
>*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
>

Received on Friday, 13 August 2004 19:27:10 UTC