- From: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
- Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 09:17:39 -0500
- To: "Karl Dubost" <karl@w3.org>, <www-qa-wg@w3.org>
Hi Karl. I'll try to answer the questions.... >>1.2C >>1. Replace. >>2. refer to 1.2A, be sure that your conformance claim reference 1.2A >>references >>the completed template 1.2B. Explain how the ICS is referenced. > >Lynne: Is it the *new* wording for the second technique. I'm not sure >about it. Its not 'new' wording, but meant to capture the thought. Rereading the Why Care, I think we already capture the thought. Perhaps what we meant, was to explicitly reference 1.2A, that is, Technique 2 (in 1.2A) provides a placeholder for the ICS --- which is already indicated in Related. I don't think you need to do anything. >>4.2A >>ACTION: Karl to fix example wording > >Lynne: hmmm There's no example. Did it mean find an example? There is an example - its written more like a story. So, perhaps we meant that it should be rewritten as an Example. The WG was XSL-FO. >>4.3A >>explain what is meant by specification >>In technique Change extensions topic to extensibility. Call it ‘extension’ > >Lynne, WG: todo: Explain at the start of Specification Guidelines the >notion of specification and specification umbrella and put the graphics. I >guess in the scope? I think Dom has already done this. --lynne
Received on Tuesday, 16 November 2004 14:17:32 UTC