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

RE: Conformance Section in 2002

From: Kirill Gavrylyuk <kirillg@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 15:43:53 -0800
Message-ID: <37DA476A2BC9F64C95379BF66BA269020607505D@red-msg-09.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Lofton Henderson" <lofton@rockynet.com>
Cc: <www-qa-wg@w3.org>

Thanks Lofton. I agreed and sent confirmation (individual) earlier
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlp-comments/2002Dec/0000.html . 

Do you think we need a more formal QA WG response? 
I BTW agree introducing more process into our LC reviews is the way to
go - what I did with SOAP was more an adhoc reaction without much of the
QA WG consensus.




-----Original Message-----
From: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 2:57 PM
To: Kirill Gavrylyuk
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
Subject: RE: Conformance Section in 2002

Kirill et al --

This is a good success story, for QA assistance in the early spec 
stages.  (Our review was invited for this one.)

By the way, Kirill, the reference [1] asks us (QA) to indicate if we are

*not* happy with XMLP's response to our issues.  I looked back at our 
submitted comments/issues, and it seems that their response is good.  Do

you agree?  Does anyone disagree?

We (QAWG) should probably give them a positive affirmation to that
effect.

For proper QAWG process, maybe should we put an item on the Monday
telecon 
agenda, "confirm XMLP response to LC comments"?  It would just take a 
minute (or less):  "is anyone dissatisfied with XMLP response to QA LC 
comments on SOAP 1.2?"

-Lofton.


At 12:39 AM 12/2/02 -0800, Kirill Gavrylyuk wrote:

>Agree. When we are involved, it gets better. For example, I think our
>participation in LC review for SOAP1.2 was quite productive [1].
>
>[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlp-comments/2002Nov/0018.html
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com]
> > Sent: Friday, November 29, 2002 11:19 AM
> > To: Karl Dubost; www-qa-wg@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: Conformance Section in 2002
> >
> >
> > Although there are parts of SpecGL that we are still tuning,
presence
>of a
> > conformance section is pretty basic.
> >
> > We are asked to participate in every PR telecon, but by then it is
too
> > late.  LC is the time to catch such major omissions, but QA is not
>asked
> > to
> > participate in many LC reviews.
> >
> > Mandatory conformance to SpecGL would solve the problem.  So would
> > pro-active LC review, but we don't have a lot of resources to do a
> > thorough
> > review of all LC documents.
> >
> > -Lofton.
> >
> > At 04:33 PM 11/27/02 -0500, Karl Dubost wrote:
> >
> > >On the 4 Recommendations published so far in 2002,
> > >
> > >No one has a conformance section :(
> > >
> > >
> > >XML-Signature XPath Filter 2.0
> > >     8 November 2002, John Boyer, Merlin Hughes, Joseph Reagle
> > >Exclusive XML Canonicalization Version 1.0
> > >     18 July 2002, John Boyer, Donald E. Eastlake 3rd, Joseph
Reagle
> > >The Platform for Privacy Preferences 1.0 (P3P1.0) Specification
> > >     16 April 2002, Massimo Marchiori
> > >XML-Signature Syntax and Processing
> > >     12 February 2002, Donald Eastlake, Joseph Reagle, David Solo
> > >
> > >
> > >--
> > >Karl Dubost / W3C - Conformance Manager
> > >           http://www.w3.org/QA/
> > >
> > >      --- Be Strict To Be Cool! ---
> > >
Received on Tuesday, 3 December 2002 18:44:27 GMT

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