Re: QASG last call comments: Modesty requirement

Le 19 janv. 2005, à 09:56, Ian Hickson a écrit :
> Finally I would add one other good practice: specifications should not
> claim to be simple, easy, device-independent, conformant to WAAA or
> QAG, or make other claims about their quality or conformance to other
> specifications. While it is fine to indicate that one of the
> requirements of the specification may have been to be easy / device-
> independent / whatever, it should IMHO be up to the reader to make the
> determination of whether the working group was successful or not.

If a specification is conformant to something else, it's because… it is.

For example, if a WG write a specification and find out that they are 
conformant to SpecGL after checking with the ICS, why they should not 
claim that they are conformant to SpecGL?

Agreed for Easy and simple which are subjective.

SpecGL Conformance criteria are (should be) objective as for Infoset 
for example.


-- 
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager
*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***