[draft] answer to TAG comment on Conformance clause optionality

Original comment (issue 1145 [1]):
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005Mar/0017.html


As a response to your comment, the QA Working Group has accepted your 
comment and has used your example [2]:
	  On [date of the publication], this specification [name of the
   specification], edited by [name of the publishing entity], explains in
   section [link to where] why it does not need a conformance clause and
   is thus conformant to Specification Guidelines WD, November 22, 2004
   published at http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-qaframe-spec-20041122/.



[1] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1145
[2] 
http://www.w3.org/QA/Group/2005/02/qaframe-spec/#specgl-claim-wording




-- 
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager
*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***