W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > August 2005

Re: QA Conformance Clause Template

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 18:20:39 -0400
Message-Id: <1241A5EA-9E89-43EB-A7BC-C5AD7C4DC528@w3.org>
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>

Le 2005-08-02 à 17:30, Lofton Henderson a écrit :
> Then you disagree with UAAG's usage of "well-formed" versus  
> "valid", when applied to conformance claims?

No I don't disagree. I just expressed my understanding of the way it  
was expressed in QA Spec GL :)

> And you propose that QAWG should use "valid" to mean the same thing  
> that UAAG uses "well-formed" to mean?

No issue with that. But it has certainly to be clarified. :)

> I like UAAG's usage.  Perhaps more important, I don't see any  
> reason for us to redefine terms that have been in use in REC UAAG  
> for some years, and whose definition is not clearly wrong or  
> unreasonable.

I didn't say "we should redefine", I said:

"We have certainly to clarify because we don't understand the same  
thing and then other people might have the same interpretation problem."

You have cut a part of the story ;)

Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager
*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Tuesday, 2 August 2005 22:20:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:43:40 UTC