- From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 11:03:49 -0400
- To: www-qa@w3.org
- Cc: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Dear Chris,
Thanks for your comments on the Last Call version of the QA Framework:
Specification Guidelines[0] - 22 November 2004
Original comments (issues 1151, 1143, and part of 1158):
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005Mar/0007.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005Mar/0015.html
also relates to:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005Mar/att-0014/
qaframework-recursiveconformance.html footnotes 6, 8, 9
The QA Working Group agrees that for deprecated, obsolete, optional
features and subdivisions, it was not clear how a specification could
match the requirements if none of these were present in the
specification. To clarify this, the Good Practices and Requirements have
been amended. For instance, the "Identify deprecated features" now reads
in "What does it mean?":
If the specified technology has already been published in a previous
version of the specification, indicate the features from the
previous version now deprecated or state in the conformance section
that no features were deprecated.
http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-qaframe-spec-20050428/#deprecated-
feature-principle
Similarly for:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-qaframe-spec-20050428/#subdivide-foster-gp
http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-qaframe-spec-20050428/#label-options-gp
http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-qaframe-spec-20050428/#obsolete-gp
[0] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-qaframe-spec-20041122/
--
Karl Dubost
QA Working Group Chair
http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/
Received on Tuesday, 3 May 2005 15:04:11 UTC