Re: Issue 1144 regarding SpecGL 2.3

Le lundi 14 mars 2005 à 17:12 -0500, Karl Dubost a écrit :
> Le 14 mars 2005, à 10:50, Dominique Hazaël-Massieux a écrit :
> > It's going in the right direction, but I'm not fully satisfied yet; 
> > what
> > about: "Provide details on normative references to anticipate conflicts
> > and vagueness"?
> 
> Another set of other suggestions.
> * Provide technical implications of each normative reference
> * Provide conformance implications of each normative reference
> * Provide technical dependencies on each normative reference
> * Provide conformance dependencies on each normative reference
> 
> Previous ones:
> 
> * The specification should provide sufficient detail in the normative 
> references to prevent conflicting interpretations of the requirements 
> imposed by reference.
> * Provide details about normative references
> * Provide detailed normative references.
> * When imposing requirements by normative references, prevent conflicts 
> and vagueness.
> * Provide details on normative references to anticipate conflicts and 
> vagueness

We still haven't reached a conclusion on this, have we? Maybe we need to
discuss it on the call? As a reminder, we need a less workflow-oriented
version of GP 08 "Do systematic reviews of normative references and
their implications."

Dom
-- 
Dominique Hazaël-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/
W3C/ERCIM
mailto:dom@w3.org