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

Re: Review of QA-Ops through SpecGL

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 16:55:28 -0700
Message-Id: <>
To: Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
At 06:01 PM 12/13/02 +0100, Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux wrote:
>I just completed my assignment to review QA-Ops through SpecGL:
>linked from

Great!  I'll try to study it before Monday.  We have a small amount of 
OpsGL time reserved.

I'd like to factor at least the uncontroversial parts of it into the next 
WG draft of OpsGL (12/20) -- the final pre-Seattle draft.  However, I'm not 
sure we'll have time for any significant issue resolution (but your summary 
is encouraging, "Overall, the OPS guidelines are not far from being A 
conformant, and, FWIW, even AAA. Most of the issues are editorial, not 

Your feedback on SpecGL may be more substantive,
"[...] the whole modules/profiles/levels still bear some fuziness to what 
it should apply... I'm more and more convinced that levels are just one 
kind of profiles (anyway, the "level" guideline only contains 1 CP). Some 
SpecGL CP needs clarifications, too."

This will surely generate some SpecGL discussion topics.  We can have a 
look at them on Wednesday, when you will be present.  Again, what we can 
accomplish before 12/20 (last pre-Seattle WG draft) is limited.  We can 
deal with the weightier bits f2f.

>My other assignment for review of QA WG through QA ops will most
>probably not been done for Monday, but I hope to do it for Tuesday,

Good.  This ought to generate some good substance for discussions about our 
QAWG Process Document (which is WG processes and QA processes 
combined.)  Peter is working on a pre-Seattle draft.  (Hmmm, I didn't put 
it on Seattle agenda and guess that it ought to have a slice of time.)

Received on Friday, 13 December 2002 18:54:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:14:29 UTC