Tuesday, 31 May 2005
- Re: ISSUE 1049: Resolution?
- Re: ISSUE 1049: Resolution?
- Re: Objection to resolution of LC comment [was: Answer to Paul Grosso about Classes of Products]
Thursday, 26 May 2005
Wednesday, 25 May 2005
- Re: Answer to WAI CG on Address Accessibility in Requirements
- Objection to resolution of LC comment [was: Answer to Paul Grosso about Classes of Products]
Tuesday, 24 May 2005
Monday, 23 May 2005
- Re: formal vs. prose and PR [was: Re: Final minutes QA WG Teleconference May 16]
- OK Re: formal vs. prose and PR [was: Re: Final minutes QA WG Teleconference May 16]
- Re: formal vs. prose and PR [was: Re: Final minutes QA WG Teleconference May 16]
- Re: formal vs. prose and PR [was: Re: Final minutes QA WG Teleconference May 16]
- formal vs. prose and PR [was: Re: Final minutes QA WG Teleconference May 16]
- Final minutes QA WG Teleconference May 16
Sunday, 22 May 2005
Wednesday, 18 May 2005
- Re: Answer to Paul Grosso about Classes of Products
- RE: Answer to Paul Grosso about Classes of Products
- Re: Answer to Ian Hickson: Formal vs prose language normativity
- Minutes QA Working Group Teleconference 2005-05-09
- RE: [si] (SISR-DOC2) QA Review of Semantic Interpretation last ca ll draft
Monday, 16 May 2005
- Re: Answer to Ian Hickson: Formal vs prose language normativity
- Re: Answer to Ian Hickson: Formal vs prose language normativity
- Re: Answer to Ian Hickson: Formal vs prose language normativity
- Re: Answer to Ian Hickson: Formal vs prose language normativity
- Re: Answer to Ian Hickson: Formal vs prose language normativity
- Re: Answer to Ian Hickson: Formal vs prose language normativity
- Re: Answer to Ian Hickson: Formal vs prose language normativity
- Re: Answer to Ian Hickson: Formal vs prose language normativity
- Re: Answer to Ian Hickson: Formal vs prose language normativity
- Re: Answer to Ian Hickson: Additions to "write tests"
Friday, 13 May 2005
- Re: answer to TAG issue on positive statements for non applicability
- Re: Answer to Ian Hickson: Modesty requirement
- Re: Answer to Ian Hickson: Additions to "write tests"
- Re: Answer to Ian Hickson: Formal vs prose language normativity
- Re: answer to TAG issue on positive statements for non applicability
Saturday, 7 May 2005
Wednesday, 11 May 2005
- Answer to WAI CG on extensibility in the case of WCAG2.0
- Answer to WAI CG on Deprecation in case of
- Answer to WAI CG on detailed table of contents
- Answer to WAI CG on Address Accessibility in Requirements
- Answer to WAI CG on Need Clarifications for 2.2
- Answer to WAI CG on Managing Variability in WCAG2.0
- Answer to WAI CG on Formal Language vs. Prose: Ambiguity
- Answer to to WAI CG on Need Clarifications for 2.2 Requirement A
- Answer to WAI CG on Deprecation in case of WCAG1.0/WCAG2.0
- Test Development FAQ released
Monday, 9 May 2005
- Re: answer to Dave Marston comment on Conformance section for a technology or for a specification (005)
- Re: answer to Dave Marston comment on What's a core module
Wednesday, 4 May 2005
Tuesday, 3 May 2005
- Re: answer to TAG comment on Suggestions of examples for section 2.3
- Re: answer to TAG comment on Text in example of section 2.3 needs fixing
- Re: answer to TAG issue on SpecGL ICS
- Re: Answer to Comment about HTML spec examples needs refinement
- Re: answer to TAG comment on ICS needs more than y/n/n-a
- Re: answer to TAG comment on ICS needs more than y/n/n-a
- Re: answer to TAG comment on Conformance clause optionality
- Re: answer to TAG comment on wording in tips
- Re: answer to TAG comment on workflow
- Re: Answer to OMG
- Re: Answer to OMG
- Re: Answer to Ian Hickson: Formal vs prose language normativity
- Answer to OMG
- Re: Answer to Ian Hickson: Modesty requirement
- Re: answer to TAG comment on unclear legend for illustration section 4.1
- Re: Answer to TAG comment on using our own example
- Re: Answer to TAG comment on error processing requirements
- Re: Answer to TAG comment on editorial comments
- Re: answer to TAG issue on positive statements for non applicability
- Re: Answer to Ian Hickson: Additions to error mechanism section
- Re: Answer to Ian Hickson: Additions to "write tests"
- Re: Answer to Ian Hickson Structure Numbering Confusing
- Re: Answer to Ian Hickson: Correction to example about CSS extensibility
- Re: Answer to Ian Hickson: Avoiding device-dependent profiles
- Re: Answer to Ian Hickson: Case of RFC2119 terms
- Re: Answer to Ian Hickson: Comment about HTML spec exa mples needs refinement
- Answer to Paul Grosso about Classes of Products
- Answer to Tony Cincotta about revised text
- Answer to Tony Cincotta about typos
- Re: Answer to Ian Hickson: Scope also helps reviewers determine when the specificati...
- Answer to Jeremy Carrol
- Re: Answer to Ian Hickson: Conformance is not a yes/no proposition (wrt filling an ICS)
- Answer to comment about the complexities of normative references
- answer to Dave Marston comment on Conformance section for a technology or for a specification (005)
- answer to Dave Marston comment on What's a core module
- answer to TAG comment on Suggestions of examples for section 2.3
- answer to TAG comment on Text in example of section 2.3 needs fixing
- Answer to Ian Hickson Structure Numbering Confusing
- Answer to Ian Hickson: Modesty requirement
- Answer to Ian Hickson:Formal vs prose language nor mativity
- Answer to Ian Hickson: Additions to "write tests"
- Answer to Ian Hickson: Additions to error mechanism section
- Answer to Ian Hickson: Correction to example about CSS extensibility
- Answer to Ian Hickson: Avoiding device-dependent profiles
- Answer to Ian Hickson: Case of RFC2119 terms
- Answer to Comment about HTML spec examples needs refinement
- Answer to Ian Hickson: Scope also helps reviewers determine when the specificati...
- Answer to Ian Hickson: Conformance is not a yes/no proposition (wrt filling an ICS)
- Answer to Ian Hickson: Comment about HTML spec exa mples needs refinement
- Answer to Ian Hickson: Scope also helps reviewers determine when the specificati...
- Answer to Ian Hickson: Conformance is not a yes/no proposition (wrt filling an ICS)
- answer to TAG issue on SpecGL ICS
- Answer to comment about "Non-specification specifications"
- Answer to comment on the term "Umbrella specification"
- Answer to comment on "parsing the definition of specification"
- Answer to comment on "confusing structure and numbering"
- Answer to comment on "Specifying conformance" wording
- answer to TAG comment on ICS needs more than y/n/n-a
- answer to TAG comment on Conformance clause optionality
- answer to TAG comment on wording in tips
- answer to TAG comment on workflow
- answer to TAG comment on unclear legend for illustration section 4.1
- Answer to TAG comment on using our own example
- Answer to TAG comment on error processing requirements
- Answer to TAG comment on editorial comments
- Answer to TAG comment on extensions and conformance
- answer to TAG issue on positive statements for non applicability
- Answer to comment about extensibility