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

Re: DRAFT minutes QAWG teleconference 20020128

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 10:41:16 -0700
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020131102858.03385a10@rockynet.com>
To: Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
Good minutes.  Just one substantive point, about your question at the end:

At 06:24 PM 1/29/02 +0100, you wrote:
>[...]
>Issue #48: Should the planned Technical Guidelines be a
>guideline-checkpoint part of the Framework doc family?
>There is a naming pb with the potential 4th document of the Framework
>(Technical GL and Technical techniques). LH proposes "Test material GL"
>instead. The second part of the issue is to know if such a document
>would have its place in the framework family.
>
>DECISION: [@@@ Fixme]

Here is my remembrance.  To the discussion, add:  Editors (dd, KG, LH) 
believe that there will be conformance requirements (checkpoints) on test 
materials, as well as examples and techniques (tools and resources).  So 
the Gd/Ck would go into "Test Materials Guidelines", and the ex&tech would 
go into "Test Materials Examples and Techniques".  DD questioned the 
relationship between the last part and the section in the Frm:Intro 
document, "Technical assets".

DECISION:  Keep the 4th document (two parts) in the Framework, rename 
"Technical" to "Test Materials", and add a comment to the Frm:Intro 
"Technical Assets" section, pointing out the connection between the stuff 
in the section and the "Test Materials Examples and Techniques".

-Lofton.
Received on Thursday, 31 January 2002 12:40:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:09 GMT