Re: QA Conformance Clause Template

At 06:20 PM 8/2/2005 -0400, Karl Dubost wrote:
>Le 2005-08-02 à 17:30, Lofton Henderson a écrit :
>[...]
>"We have certainly to clarify because we don't understand the same
>thing and then other people might have the same interpretation problem."

Actually, a reasonable way to resolve this question might be to just strike 
the word "valid".  In the conformance claim context (section 2.1.2), it 
appears four times in SpecGL and once in the template.

So for example, reword GP5:

old:  Require an Implementation Conformance Statement as part of valid 
conformance claims.
new:  Require an Implementation Conformance Statement as part of 
conformance claims.

The word "valid" adds nothing to the statement.  What is it's 
counter-point?  We don't intend to talk about "invalid conformance claims", 
and I don't think we ever intended to include two conformance designations 
for conformance claims, as UAAG did (valid vs. well-formed).

I.e., this would be purely an editorial change and does not alter the 
substantive meaning.

-Lofton.

Received on Tuesday, 2 August 2005 23:02:54 UTC