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: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 18:52:22 -0400
To: "'Lofton Henderson'" <lofton@rockynet.com>, <www-qa-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000301c24965$f8b485a0$221f0681@9tys201>

I think 1 and 2.  I'm not sure that it belongs in the SpecGL - I need to
think about that some more.  Also, I would like it to be circulated to the
IG - thus, giving a wider audience a chance to look at it.  Then, if someone
has a problem with the classification, they have a chance to comment on it -
whether they comment or not.


-----Original Message-----
From: www-qa-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:www-qa-wg-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Lofton Henderson
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 04:18 PM
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Clarification on spec categories [was: Where "Rules for
Profiles" fit into Spec Guidelines]

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.


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

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 18:55:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:14:28 UTC