- From: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
- Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2003 12:03:21 -0600 (MDT)
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Cc: www-qa@w3.org
On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > The current Specification Guidelines document > <http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2003/08/qaframe-spec> does not define what it > consideres an implementation. For example, is a MathML document > considered an implementation of the MathML specification? If it is > considered an implementation, this should be made explicit. If it is not > considered an implementation, the document lacks checkpoints for > documents, it is for example nowadays quite common for web authors to > include conformance claims for their web site on their web site but > Guideline 9 only considers "implementations". Would it be sufficient to say that "implementation" is anything that is a subject to specification's conformance statement (explicit or implied)? That would cover software, documents, specifications (e.g. a spec may contain conformance requirements for other specs describing protocol bindings or optional modules), etc. Alex. -- | HTTP performance - Web Polygraph benchmark www.measurement-factory.com | HTTP compliance+ - Co-Advisor test suite | all of the above - PolyBox appliance
Received on Wednesday, 3 September 2003 14:03:25 UTC