- From: Dominique Hazaël-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 12:01:15 +0200
- To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
- Message-Id: <1092822138.4811.219.camel@stratustier>
Le lun 16/08/2004 à 22:41, Karl Dubost a écrit : > Le 05 août 2004, à 15:04, Karl Dubost a écrit : > > Good Practice: > > In the conformance clause, define how normative language is expressed. So, trying to clarify what I was saying during Monday's teleconf: - I think we really mean how "conformance requirements are expressed"; I don't know what we would mean by "normative language", e.g. how does "normative language" relate to "normative content" [C2 does in fact uses the "conformance requirements" term rather than "normative language"] - having reviewed quite a few W3C specifications, I know that I don't think it's a bug for anyone not to describe its conformance requirements style in the conformance section, i.e. I wouldn't ask anybody to change their specs if the information is already available in an obvious place, like a "Terminology" section; as such, I don't feel compelled to put this as a good practice, since I know I wouldn't in fact recommend it - I agree that an option could be to relax the GP to allow linking from the conformance section rather than including in it; but I know as a spec author I would find that useless - I like that our new SpecGL is lite; creating a good practice for this looks too heavy for me I'm still of the opinion that this GP should be in C2, with a technique indicating to put it in the conformance section or in a terminology section Dom -- Dominique Hazaël-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/ W3C/ERCIM mailto:dom@w3.org
Received on Wednesday, 18 August 2004 10:01:17 UTC