- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 14:17:20 -0600
- To: Dominique Hazaël-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
- Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
At 06:58 PM 4/20/2005 +0200, Dominique Hazaël-Massieux wrote: >Le mercredi 20 avril 2005 à 18:06 +0200, Dominique Hazaël-Massieux a >écrit : > > It could also be solved by classifying the GPs as > > > "normative, optional", saying that it's better than plain Conforming > > > to satisfy as many GPs as possible, but not defining any designation > > > other than "Conforming" ( == "does all Rqts"). > > > > I like the latter approach; of course we need to find the right wording > > for it... Would you have a draft proposal? I will try to have a proposal before Monday. >If we go that way, we also need to make sure to update the text in the >introduction of the document, where Good Practices are described as >informative (or non-normatives) in several places. Yes. -Lofton.
Received on Wednesday, 20 April 2005 22:49:15 UTC