W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > August 2002

Re: Clarification on spec categories [was: Where "Rules for Profiles" fit into Spec Guidelines]

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 15:17:34 -0600
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020821145840.03fa2240@rockynet.com>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org

QAWG -- other opinions solicited...

I initially agreed with Dave's suggestion, but have re-thought it.

I'm concerned that we not tie the (probably unreviewed) table to a WD which 
does now have QAWG consensus for publication.  I said "unreviewed", because 
there were no replies to Dom's original circulation -- unless everyone 
agreed 100%!  For this reason, I'm a bit nervous that we link it from the 
published WD, despite Dom's disclaimer at the start.

Options:

0.) As Dave suggested.

1.) SpecExtech:  put it there, and put a note in SpecGL with a forward 
reference to (future) Extech .

2.) Dom submit it to IG list for discussion after SpecGL publication (it 
would be a good conversation starter!).

3.) SpecGL:  put a note in GL2, noting the existence of an an individual 
contribution/exercise, pointing to Dom's archived email message (which 
links to the table); maybe also strengthen disclaimer at start of Dom's 
document.

4.) 1+2

5.) 2+3

At 01:04 PM 8/21/02 -0400, David Marston/Cambridge/IBM wrote:
>[...]
> >Here is an attempt of creating such a table:
> >http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/08/rec_categories
>
>How about putting an editorial note under Guideline 2 for this edition
>of SpecGL? It would not imply a commitment to maintain such a table or
>to point to it from later drafts of SpecGL.
>.................David Marston
Received on Wednesday, 21 August 2002 17:17:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:10 GMT