Re: QA Conformance Clause Template

Karl,

In editing the CC template, I think I took care of all your comments.  But 
I disagreed about this one:

At 02:32 PM 7/20/2005 -0400, Karl Dubost wrote:
>[...]
>* Conformance Claims
>     Valid is fine.

On the other hand, UAAG may have created a precedent that we want to follow:
http://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG10/conformance.html#conformance-claims
Quoting from UAAG:
>3.2 Conformance claims
>
>A claim is well-formed if it meets the following two conditions.
>
>Condition 1: The claim must include the following information:
>
>    1. The date of the claim.
>    2. A conformance profile.
>    3. Information about the user agent. The user agent may consist of 
> more than one component. For each component, the claim must include the 
> following:
>           * Name and version information for the component. Version 
> information must be sufficient to identify the user agent (e.g., vendor 
> name, version number, minor release number, required patches or updates, 
> natural language of the user interface or documentation). The version 
> information may refer to a range of user agents (e.g., "this claim refers 
> to all user agents version 6.x").
>           * Name and version information for the operating environment 
> (or environments) in which the component is running.
>
>Condition 2: At least one version of the claim must [...snip lotsa' detail...]
>
>3.2.1 Validity of a claim
>
>A conformance claim is valid if it is well-formed and if the user agent 
>satisfies the requirements of the chosen conformance profile.

So it looks to me like the list of things that must be present in the claim 
makes it *well formed*, in the UAAG usage.  If the claim is true as well, 
then that makes it *valid*.

I think we should stick with "well formed" -- established terminology used 
by WAI -- for the template item that enumerates the 6 required information 
items.  Note that this does not contradict any usage in SpecGL text itself 
(which uses neither term).

(Actually, perhaps the first 5 items qualify it as well-formed, and the 6th 
-- pointer to ICS -- makes it valid.  But since QAWG have defined that an 
ICS does not imply any claim that the implementation "...satisfies the 
requirements of [specification]", I think we should not go there with the 
6th item.)

Next message from me will contain the partially edited template, over to 
you to finish a Dublin discussion version.

-Lofton.

Old CR template:
[1] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2004/08/SpecGL-template-text.html