- From: Mark Skall <mark.skall@nist.gov>
- Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 10:17:53 -0500
- To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
I was assigned an action item to define a best practice to address the problem I identified during my review of XINCLUDE for conformance to SpecGL. The problem had to do with not knowing if various features, like deprecated features, were present and thus not being able to determine if the absence of the identification of these features, as required by SpecGL, was non-conformance or non applicability. After careful review, I decided that there was already a best practice that solves this problem - it is the best practice for providing an ICS. The existing ICS best practice asks for implementations to indicate which capabilities and optional features have been implemented. In our telcon discussion we agreed that this would be a possible solution to the problem but that we would need some way to make the ICS accessible from the spec. However, the existing best practice specifically says that "This Good Practice suggests that the specification itself include an ICS proforma." It seems to me that following this best practice would take care of this problem. Thus, there is no need for a new best practice. Happy holidays. Mark **************************************************************** Mark Skall Chief, Software Diagnostics and Conformance Testing Division Information Technology Laboratory National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8970 Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8970 Voice: 301-975-3262 Fax: 301-590-9174 Email: skall@nist.gov ****************************************************************
Received on Thursday, 23 December 2004 15:18:36 UTC