- From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 11:18:29 -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 After two weeks from now (on May 18, 2005), the lack of answer will be considered as if you had accepted the comment. Original comment (issue 1145 [1]): http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005Mar/0017.html As a response to your comment, the QA Working Group has accepted your comment and has used your example [2]: On [date of the publication], this specification [name of the specification], edited by [name of the publishing entity], explains in section [link to where] why it does not need a conformance clause and is thus conformant to Specification Guidelines WD, November 22, 2004 published at http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-qaframe-spec-20041122/. [0] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-qaframe-spec-20041122/ [1] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1145 [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-qaframe-spec-20050428/#specgl-claim- wording -- Karl Dubost QA Working Group Chair http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/
Received on Tuesday, 3 May 2005 15:18:46 UTC