- From: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
- Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 15:27:11 -0400
- To: "Karl Dubost" <karl@w3.org>, <www-qa-wg@w3.org>
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