- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 19:20:40 +0200
- To: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
- Cc: www-qa@w3.org
On Tuesday, May 3, 2005, 5:18:29 PM, Karl wrote: KD> Dear Chris, KD> Thanks for your comments on the Last Call version of the QA Framework: KD> Specification Guidelines[0] - 22 November 2004 KD> After two weeks from now (on May 18, 2005), the lack of answer will KD> be considered as if you had accepted the comment. KD> Original comment (issue 1145 [1]): KD> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005Mar/0017.html KD> As a response to your comment, the QA Working Group has accepted your KD> comment and has used your example [2]: KD> On [date of the publication], this specification [name of the KD> specification], edited by [name of the publishing entity], KD> explains in KD> section [link to where] why it does not need a conformance clause and KD> is thus conformant to Specification Guidelines WD, November 22, 2004 KD> published at http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-qaframe-spec-20041122/. KD> [0] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-qaframe-spec-20041122/ KD> [1] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1145 KD> [2] KD> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-qaframe-spec-20050428/#specgl-claim- KD> wording Excellent, thank you. -- Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org Chair, W3C SVG Working Group W3C Graphics Activity Lead
Received on Tuesday, 3 May 2005 17:20:49 UTC