RE: new version of Conformance Requirements Document

[David Smiley <dsmiley@mercator.com>]

A few comments on the new version of the doc/spec. Most of these are
formatting and consistency issues (conformance?), but the first regards
content and meaning.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------
Section 7.5 Alternate Approaches

282 Specifications may describe several different ways to accomplish its
operation (e.g., a 
283 choice of file formats, protocols, or codes).  In such a case, the
conformance clause 
284 should specify under what conditions an implementation is considered to
be conformant.
285 Some possible ways to define conformance include mandating that an
implementation 
286 shall:

Line 284, do we mean "should" or "shall"?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------
Section 7.3.3. Mechanism to allow extensions

257 For example, the ISO Computer Graphics Metafile (CGM) standard on which
the W3C
258 WebCGM Recommendation is based provides for both a standard function
(GDP
259 element) for defining private graphics functionality as well as using
negative values to 
260 define private values.  Thus by invoking the GDP element a user  (CGM
261 generator) can define a new graphical function. 

Line 258 - Delete the word "for". 
Line 259 - Change "as well as using" to "as well as the use of".
Also, this is a very long sentence just begging to be split 
into 2 sentences, or punctuated with additional commas.

Suggestion:
For example, the ISO Computer Graphics Metafile (CGM) is the standard on
which the W3C WebCGM Recommendation is based. It provides both a standard
function (GDP element) for defining private graphics functionality, as well
as the use of negative values to define private values.  

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------
Reference Documents
Terms and Conditions
Rationale for a conformance clause
etc.

In these bulleted lists, there is inconsistency in the punctuation at the
end of each item. Sometimes there is none, other times there are commas,
periods or semicolons.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------
Line 213

Change "etc" (no period) to "etc.".

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------
Line 292

Change "if" (no capital) to "If".

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------

David Smiley
Director of Standards
Mercator




-----Original Message-----
From: Lynne Rosenthal [mailto:lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov]
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 3:43 PM
To: conformance@lists.oasis-open.org; Todd_Margo@stercomm.com;
PDeSmedt@viquity.com; david@drummondgroup.com; rik@drummondgroup.com
Subject: new version of Conformance Requirements Document


Hello All

Attached is a new version of the Conformance Requirements Document 
incorporating the comments from our Aug 16 teleconference.   This document 
will also be available via the TC's web pages by the end of this week 
(hopefully).  Please send any comments, additions, etc to 
conformance@lists.oasis-open.org and/or to me.  (Please Note, that some 
people on our mailing list are not subscribed)

The attached documents are textually identical -
Conformance Requirementsv0.1.doc - has Word's Track Changes on, so you can 
see what has been modified.
Conformance Requriementsv0.1.htm - is the document as it will appear on the 
TC's web pages.

regards
Lynne