1145 2005-03-04 02:46:18 +0000 Conformance clause optionality is not reflected in proforma conformance claim 2005-04-28 11:53:52 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified QA QASpec-GL LC-2004-11-22 All All RESOLVED REMIND http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005Mar/0017.html P2 normal --- 1 dom karl karl oldest_to_newest 3976 0 dom 2005-03-04 02:46:18 +0000 he specification does in fact have a large optional part. "the conformance clause may be an explanation of why there is no "conformance to this document" and may be presented in another section rather than in a separate conformance section." This large optional part (either make this claim that there is no conformance, OR meet all of the Requirements) is not reflected in the proforma. It would probably be better to provide language for a claim that specifically addresses this case. For example On [date of the publication], this specification [name of the specification], edited by [name of the publishing entity], explains in section [link to where] why it does not need a conformance clause and is thus conformant to Specification Guidelines WD, November 22, 2004 published at http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-qaframe-spec-20041122/. 4000 1 dom 2005-03-04 17:48:47 +0000 Would like to see a conformance claim proform for how to declare that you don’t have a conformance clause. Suggested text is provided. RESOLUTION: agree with the TAG and will adopt the example provided. 3700 2 dom 2005-04-28 11:53:52 +0000 setting version to LC in case of future use