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

Re: Status of [X]HTML test suite? -- p.s.

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 15:32:22 -0600
Message-Id: <>
To: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>, www-qa-wg@w3.org

I asked,

"Actually, some groups even have non-public charters, after "release", 
don't they?  Is HTML one of these?"

 From the draft charter, the answer is:  "This charter is also public."


>The new HTML WG Charter
>         http://www.w3.org/2002/05/html/charter (Members only)
>The answers to the received comments including QA
>         http://www.w3.org/2002/05/html/issues (Team only)
>The access to this kind of document is an interesting problem for the 
>intended review :)
>In the interesting answers there were
>About Test Suites.
>  Q: Test suites "preferably before candidate recommendation" - not sure
>   that this is not yet a MUST
>  A: It's not a MUST according to the current Process Document.
>Which tend to confirm that there's a need for modification of the Process 
>Document if we want to enforce it as Dimitris has suggested.

Note that I updated Issues #16 and #71,


per Montreal and Dom's proposal.  So (#71) we endorsed the manditoriness, 
but didn't yet define the mechanism.  Dom mentioned for Ops GL maybe an 
addendum to Process Document, and for Spec GL maybe a requirement in 
pubrules.  But we haven't yet endorsed a specific strategy to achieve the 
manditoriness.  So #16 still says, "For now, QAWG will not propose any 
changes [to Process Document]."

>About QA Section in the charter.
>The HTML WG had decided to not hardcode in their charter a process which 
>is still half-cooked on our side (QA WG). It's why there's no precise 
>answers right now to the guidelines :)

Half-cooked?  For Ops GL, I think we must be at least "80%-cooked" by now!

Received on Wednesday, 26 June 2002 17:30:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:14:27 UTC