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

Fwd: Re: Issue #22

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2002 08:36:07 -0700
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20020106083417.028c9990@rockynet.com>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
(I'm forwarding this for Lynne, who is unable to post to WG list from her 
current location... -LH)

>Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2002 14:40:52 -0500
>To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
>From: lynne rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
>Subject: Re: Issue #22
>
>QA WG
>
>
>>>It is clear that we are going to have to do significant amounts of issue 
>>>resolution, or at least preliminary discussion, on our WG email 
>>>list.  There is one issue that I (wearing hat of "'Introduction' 
>>>editor") would like to have some discussion on:  Issue 22 [1], "Should 
>>>the scope of the Introduction [2] be expanded?"
>>>
>>>22a.) resolution:  yes/no (or some modification of the suggested 
>>>3-bullet expansion).
>
>Yes - the Intro needs to be modified.  The only suggested bullet I agree 
>with is to include something regarding the Interdependencies between the 
>QA Activity and WGs and perhaps the QA Activity and external quality 
>activities.  I don't think this document should describe the QA Activity - 
>i.e., its scope, deliverables, or even an overview of the Activity.  This 
>Framework document: INTRO should focus on the Framework family of 
>documents - providing the intro to these documents, overview, scope, 
>roadmap, rationale for having these documents, etc.  In the course of 
>doing this, it would be necessary to talk somewhat about the QA Activity, 
>but not have it as a central theme of the Intro.
>
>
>>>22b.) necessary/unnecessary before FPWD.
>
>Necessary.  But, I don't think what needs to be done prior to FPWD is a 
>major effort - mostly removal of some of
>
Received on Sunday, 6 January 2002 10:38:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:08 GMT