[draft] Proposed answer to TAG issue on positive statements for non applicability

Original comments (issues 1151, 1143, and part of 1158):
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005Mar/0007.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005Mar/0015.html
also relates to:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005Mar/att-0014/qaframework-recursiveconformance.html footnotes 6, 8, 9

The QA Working Group agrees that for deprecated, obsolete, optional
features and subdivisions, it was not clear how a specification could
match the requirements if none of these were present in the
specification. To clarify this, the Good Practices and Requirements have
been amended. For instance, the "Identify deprecated features" now reads
in "What does it mean?":
   If the specified technology has already been published in a previous
   version of the specification, indicate the features from the
   previous version now deprecated or state in the conformance section
   that no features were deprecated.
http://www.w3.org/QA/Group/2005/02/qaframe-spec/#deprecated-feature-principle

Similarly for:
http://www.w3.org/QA/Group/2005/02/qaframe-spec/#subdivide-foster-gp
http://www.w3.org/QA/Group/2005/02/qaframe-spec/#label-options-gp
http://www.w3.org/QA/Group/2005/02/qaframe-spec/#obsolete-gp

-- 
Dominique Hazaël-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/
W3C/ERCIM
mailto:dom@w3.org