- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 09:14:04 -0600
- To: Art.Barstow@nokia.com, <www-qa@w3.org>
At 10:47 AM 8/9/02 -0400, Art.Barstow@nokia.com wrote: >Does the QA WG consider the terms "conformance" and "compliance" >interchangeable? >For example does the WG (and its tech reports) consider these two assertions >equivalent: > > 1. My implementation is 100% compliant with specification A > 2. My implementation is 100% conformant with specification A > >If these assertions are not equivalent, what's the difference? I rarely use "compliance" or "compliant", for a couple of reasons. First, in my experience, it has been abused so much in marketing claims and hype that I have a bias against it. Second, I'm not sure what its definition is. I don't think QAWG has discussed it or taken a position. If it is synonymous with Conformance, then why define and use it? I.e., there is a lot to be said for consistent terminology. If it is different ... does anyone want to offer a definition? >Perhaps compliance should be added to: > > http://www.w3.org/QA/glossary Are you interested to propose a definition? (Note the invitation in the first paragraph of the Glossary.) Cheers, -Lofton.
Received on Friday, 9 August 2002 11:14:02 UTC