Re: oddities in our Conformance Model

At 06:58 PM 4/20/2005 +0200, Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux wrote:
>Le mercredi 20 avril 2005 ŗ 18:06 +0200, Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux a
>ťcrit :
> >  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.



Received on Wednesday, 20 April 2005 22:49:15 UTC