955 2004-12-10 16:59:25 +0000 Checking applicability or not of a Requirements 2005-04-28 11:53:49 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified QA QASpec-GL LC-2004-11-22 Other other RESOLVED FIXED http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2004Dec/0007 LC, SpecGL P2 normal --- 1 karl dom karl oldest_to_newest 2687 0 karl 2004-12-10 16:59:25 +0000 * How do we check that a section is not in a "Umbrella specification" because of not applicability or lack of it? * Should we have sections with non applicable. 2688 1 karl 2004-12-10 16:59:55 +0000 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2004Dec/0007.html Suggestion: * Fill the SpecGL ICS and put a link to it in your specification. Inside the ICS, explain your choices. 2874 2 dom 2005-01-25 10:35:03 +0000 in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2004Dec/0056.html Mark Skall wrote:" 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. " 3972 3 dom 2005-03-04 02:38:32 +0000 After further discussion during its Boston F2F meeting (Mar 3rd PM), the Working Group agreed to explicitely requires a positive statement when it is asked to identify one of the DoV and that there is no such a DoV in the given specification. 3646 4 dom 2005-04-28 11:53:49 +0000 setting version to LC in case of future use