This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
The TAG has filled in the conformance proforma with respect to the spec the QA Framework specification guidelines itself, to determine whether the specification conforms to itself. This mainly highlights the points made in other comments. Please ensure that the specification fully conforms to itself. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005Mar/att-0014/qaframework-recursiveconformance.html
Check that if we resolve all TAG comments we will answer Yes to all items in ICS. 1) Not clear that SpecGL requires a completed ICS in order to claim conformance to SpecGL. In Conformance Claim section, add bullet to include a completed ICS; Add to the example reference to the ICS e.g., An ICS proforma is at <give URI>. Clarify the you can claim conformance that this is one example of what the claim can look like it. Need to move SpecGLs ICS from informative to normative. Reword, in Conformance Criteria section last sentence to: If all the Requirements are checked as being satisfied, then conformance can be claimed as below. Converse is handled by statement that, To conform to this SpecGL, all Requirements must be implemented. 2) Keep definition of specification in the Scope. Add definition to Glossary. What is SpecGLs COP? Technical Reports with strong focus on specifications. 3) Not different. 4) Changed Conformance Clause is simple to Conformance Model of the SpecGL is simple. 5) Discussed earlier, under workflow mix. 6) Make more explicit - State that no subdivision is warranted. Add positive statement regarding explaining why not. We want to encourage people not to subdivide unless necessary, this seems to counter that. Status quo is that you dont subdivide. In 4.1 GP A add only when warranted. Talk about cost of subdividing in the What does this mean. 7) No extensibility mechanism is presented, although we allow it. Fine for others to add new requirements (functions) REJECT this. 8) Error handling not applicable for SpecGL. Need to reflect that this is not applicable to WGAC, SpecGL, etc. 9) No obsolete features. Need to mention that SpecGL has no deprecation, obsolete, etc. in its conformance clause. 10) Internal process for review addressed earlier by earlier TAG comment 11) Addressed by earlier TAG comment ACTION: make above changes. RESOLUTION agree with the TAG, except as Noted (7). Have reviewed ICS and taken appropriate actions (e.g., modified SpecGL) to ensure that all items result in Yes.
1) implemented 2) implemented 3) (N/A) 4) implemented 5) see relevant bug 6) implemented 7) rejected 8) implemented 9) not needed anymore since 1st version are excluded of deprecation/obsolete features declaration 10) N/A 11) N/A (completed ICS is now part of bug 983, will published along with SpecGL)
setting version to LC in case of future use