- From: Gary Feldman <g1list_1a@marsdome.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 09:36:43 -0500
- To: W3C QA Interest Group <www-qa@w3.org>
The "About this document" section, first paragraph, has a sentence "Note that for some specifications ... separate conformance section." The items listed, QA Handbook and Architecture of the World Wide Web simply aren't specifications. The earlier definition of specification said, correctly, that a specification is a set of technical requirements. If there are no requirements, then it's not a specification. The entire sentence can be deleted. If it's necessary to comment on such documents, then it should be something like "Some of the documents produced by the W3C process aren't specifications (in the sense used here), and hence this document does not apply" (or they need no conformance clause). I don't agree with a blanket statement that documents for which conformance is not an issue should have a conformance clause that explains why it doesn't need a conformance clause. Not only is there the obvious circular contradiction, but the only justification for such a statement would be if there might be confusion about it. For example, since the QA Handbook (for example) begins by saying that it's non-normative, there's no need for that document to belabor the point. Perhaps it might say "Documents for which conformance is not an issue may choose to include a statement explaining the lack of a conformance clause, if there might be confusion around that point." though personally, I think even that's saying too much. Minor error: the previous sentence, "A conformance clause template ..." has an error at "...to assist editors satisfy requirements...." The second "to," between "editors" and "satisfy" is missing. Gary http://www.marsdome.com
Received on Wednesday, 26 January 2005 14:38:17 UTC