FTOYWHAG: CNO would, in this case be an acronym for Chief Nit-picking Officer... and FTOYWHAG stands for For Those Of You Who Haven't Already Guessed ;p
p.s. Speaking of the web site, BD, CG, KL, KLL, JP, AS, OT, PBW and a few others haven't contributed a blurb about what turns them on... (hint! hint! ;p)
Read on...
On Wednesday, July 23, 2003, at 10:55 PM, Victor Mote wrote:
Robert P. J. Day wrote:so why do these table entries also say "yes" or "no" if the color is already supposed to indicate this? and what's with the entries with the single "."?
"yes" and "no" and "partial" indicate raw conformance. The location of those
values is in the column related to their compliance level. The color coding
is merely the merger of these two items in a visual manner, indicating the
raw conformance with regard to the compliance level. So, for example, if
object/property x is required for conformance at the Extended level, but is
not implemented in FOP, it still shows up as blue in the Basic column,
because it is not required there. Reds and grays in the Basic column
indicate deficiencies for Basic conformance. Reds and grays in the Extended
column indicate deficiencies for Extended conformance, etc. The periods are
merely placeholders. And yes, I know about but the last time I
checked it didn't work with our web publishing workflow.
Would it make sense to include this explanation on the compliance.html page?
As for the frequent "." perhaps a hyphen "-" would make more sense as a placeholder. In many tables I've seen, the "-" is used as a placeholder...
---
Clay Leeds - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web Developer - Medata, Inc. - http://www.medata.com
PGP Public Key: https://mail.medata.com/pgp/cleeds.asc
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
