Re: [draft] Answer to comment about "Non-specification specifications"

Le mardi 19 avril 2005 à 16:26 -0700, Patrick Curran a écrit :
> Original comment (issues 1061 [1] and 1142 [2]): 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005Jan/0036.html
> 
> Thank you for your comment, which generated a significant amount of
> discussion within the QA Working Group. We chose to address the
> comment as two separate issues. 
> 
> With regard to issue #1061 (what to call non-normative
> "specifications") we agreed that our terminology was imprecise, and
> substituted the term "technical reports" to describe non-normative
> documents that go through the W3C process. 

Technical reports is not used only for non-normative documents, but for
any document that goes through the W3C process. So this should be
reworded as:
"and substituted the term "technical reports" to describe all the
documents that go through the W3C process, normative or not."

> With regard to issue #1142 (whether or not non-normative documents
> should explain why they do not need a conformance clause) we disagree
> with your assessment that such an explanation is often unnecessary. We
> believe that based on past experience there is often a significant
> amount of confusion about whether or not a technical report is
> normative and consequently whether or not one could conform to it. We
> therefore feel that the simplest approach is always to require an
> explanation of whether or not conformance is an issue. We did agree
> with you that it is not necessary to require an actual conformance
> section in such documents. 
> 
> Our revised text reads [3]:
> 
> "Note that for some technical reports (e.g., The QA Handbook
> [QA-HANDBOOK], Architecture of the World Wide Web, Volume One
> [WEB-ARCH]) where conformance is not an issue (e.g., no normative
> content), the conformance clause may be an explanation of why there is
> no 'conformance to this document' and may be presented in another
> section rather than in a separate conformance section."
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1061
> [2] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1142
> [3] http://www.w3.org/QA/Group/2005/02/qaframe-spec/#about

Otherwise, looks good to me (as do your other draft answers)

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