1050 2005-01-21 09:47:27 +0000 Modesty requirement 2005-04-28 11:53:51 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified QA QASpec-GL LC-2004-11-22 All All RESOLVED REMIND http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005Jan/0015.html P2 normal --- 1 dom karl karl oldest_to_newest 2870 0 dom 2005-01-21 09:47:27 +0000 Finally I would add one other good practice: specifications should not claim to be simple, easy, device-independent, conformant to WAAA or QAG, or make other claims about their quality or conformance to other specifications. While it is fine to indicate that one of the requirements of the specification may have been to be easy / device- independent / whatever, it should IMHO be up to the reader to make the determination of whether the working group was successful or not. (This is the last of the eleven comment mails I had on the QASG document. I hope they were of use.) 4116 1 karl 2005-03-03 19:42:10 +0000 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2005Feb/0028.html KD disagrees with this bug. The group consensus is the text is OK as currently written. DH will draft a formal reply [AI-20050214-2] and send it to the QA WG list. Due date is February 21. KD will review the SpecGL [AI-20050214-3]. Due date February 21. 3958 2 dom 2005-03-03 22:43:04 +0000 The Working Group agreed with Dom's Proposed resolution: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2005Feb/0043.html 3682 3 dom 2005-04-28 11:53:51 +0000 setting version to LC in case of future use