- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 11:54:18 -0600
- To: Dominique Hazaël-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
- Cc: www-qa@w3.org
Dom, You wrote... At 06:21 PM 8/9/02 +0200, Dominique Hazaël-Massieux wrote: >As of the current editor version of the spec GL [1], the word >"specification" seems to be used inconsistently. Sometimes it seems to >refer to a technical report unit (namely, an entry in the TR page [2]), >sometimes a technology unit. Especially, all the GL "Address the use of >[] to divide the specification" seems to use the word specification as >meaning technology (or assumes a pre-existing specification that would >then be divided which is often wrong for the said divisions). You're right, we have been careless in using "specification" to mean both the document and the technology that it describes. >This is especially true for profiles and levels which are usually >defined in separate documents. > >Anyway, I think we need: >- to clarify the meaning of the word specification in the introduction >- adjust the GL accordingly. For your second dash-item, how about "specification's functionality" in place of the appropriate occurrences of "specification"? Would something that simple suffice? (Feel free to propose specific wording for either dash-item -- the editors would not be offended!). cheers, -Lofton. >1. http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2002/08/qaframe-spec-0804.html >2. http://www.w3.org/TR/ >3. http://www.w3.org/TR/XHTMLplusMathMLplusSVG/ >-- >Dominique Hazaël-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/ >W3C/INRIA >mailto:dom@w3.org
Received on Saturday, 10 August 2002 13:54:19 UTC