- From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 14:20:10 -0400
- To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Cc: "'www-qa-wg@w3.org'" <www-qa-wg@w3.org>
Le 05-08-01 à 18:20, Lofton Henderson a écrit :
> 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 there is a question of semantics here. :)
SpecGL proposes a list of requirements to create a conformance claim.
I don't really see
the notion of "well formed/valid" here. Let me try to explain. :)
The XML specification defines rules to write markup languages. We
could it's spelling, then the notion of "well-formed". That's the
basic minimum.
When you define your markup language you can add constraints
(grammar) in two ways:
- by the prose
- by a DTD (for example)
Prose and DTD could define exactly the same requirements and then you
could design an engine to check that it has met the requirements aka
the grammar.
The question is for the conformance clause template:
Valid means
* I have met the technical requirements defined
in the specification in my product.
or
* I have met the requirements to write a conformance claim.
for me, it's the second. For you it's the first :) We have certainly
to clarify because we don't understand the same thing and then other
people might have the same interpretation problem.
A “valid conformance claim” is, for me, a conformance claim which
conforms to the requirements defined to write a conformance claim not
that the conformance claim assess the truth or not.
:)))
--
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager
*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Tuesday, 2 August 2005 18:20:15 UTC