- From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 18:20:39 -0400
- To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
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