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

RE: Conformance Section in 2002

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 17:55:38 -0700
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20021203174315.027ba120@rockynet.com>
To: "Kirill Gavrylyuk" <kirillg@microsoft.com>
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org

At 03:43 PM 12/3/02 -0800, you wrote:

>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?

No.  My suggestion was only so that we would be "by the book" wrt QAWG 
process -- i.e., give QAWG members a chance to object to proposed response.

Since you appropriately replied as "individual", it doesn't matter.  My 
suggestion was in case that you had not replied yet.

>I BTW agree introducing more process into our LC reviews is the way to
>go -

Yes.  In addition to process, IMO the more pressing issue is:  how to 
assist *more* WGs at LC stage.  We (QAWG) are only infrequently invited to 
review LC (which is probably good, given our small 
resources).  "Manditoriness" would transfer the burden of the review to the 
WG that owns the LC, with QAWG perhaps in a consultative role.

-Lofton.
Received on Tuesday, 3 December 2002 19:54:32 GMT

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