- From: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
- Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 10:42:43 -0600 (MDT)
- To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- cc: Dominique Hazaël-Massieux <dom@w3.org>, Mark Skall <mark.skall@nist.gov>, <Art.Barstow@nokia.com>, <www-qa@w3.org>
On Fri, 9 Aug 2002, Lofton Henderson wrote: > To answer Alex's later suggestion "explain why" -- I would think it > enough to say that we're deprecating it within the Framework > documents (hence within QA) for the sake of consistent terminology > (see SpecGL checkpoint 13.4, "Use the same words to express the same > ideas."). If it is felt necessary that we explain why we chose > conformance versus compliance, we could point to the (currently > greater) legacy of abuse of "compliance". And, perhaps, add a checkpoint discouraging marketing of conformant implementations so that "conformance" does not get abused in a few years? Bad marketing folks SHOULD use "Compliant with W3C standards" terminology, while the good people should use "Conformant with W3C recommendations". [Priority3] Alex.
Received on Friday, 9 August 2002 12:42:59 UTC