Positive statements when no DoV

As per resolution of bug 955 [1], I've added the following wordings to
the editors version of SpecGL [2]:

* in GP 4.1.A, "Create subdivisions of the technology when warranted.",
I added in "what does it mean"
-> "If the technology is subdivided, indicate what subdivisions exist;
if it is not, state it in the conformance section."

* in GP 4.2.B, "Clearly identify optional features.", I added in "What
does it mean"
-> "If there are no optional features, state so in the conformance
section."

* in GP 4.3.A "Address Extensibility", I added in "what does it mean"
after
"Formalizing the position of the Working Group by a clear defined
section and prose removes ambiguities for the specification users about
the possibility of developing extension or not."
-> "This section should at least address whether the specification is
extensible or not."

* in Req 4.4.A, "Identify deprecated features", I replaced the existing
"what does it mean" paragraph with
-> "If the specified technology has already been published in a previous
version of the specification, indicate which features from the previous
version have been deprecated or state that none were deprecated in the
conformance section"

* ni GP 4.4.D, "Identify obsolete features", I replaced the existing
"what does it mean" paragraph with
-> "If the specified technology has been published in a previous version
of the specification, indicate which features from the previous version
have been made obsolete, or state that no features were made obsolete in
the conformance section."

I'm interested to hear corrections, suggestions, and ideas as to whether
this covers all of what bug 955 was about. (note that we still need to
update SpecGL conformance section in that regard)

Dom

1. http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=955
2. http://www.w3.org/QA/Group/2005/02/qaframe-spec/
-- 
Dominique Hazaël-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/
W3C/ERCIM
mailto:dom@w3.org