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

Re: issue #19

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 15:53:33 +0900
Message-Id: <a05111b11b9d40cc1d9be@[]>
To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>, www-qa-wg@w3.org

At 10:16 -0600 2002-10-14, Lofton Henderson wrote:
>1.) With the aggressive publication schedules, it is not possible to 
>coordinate with QA Glossary (esp. for new terms).

Not a good reason... What you are saying is a coordination problem 
not a real issue. It's not difficult to edit the QA Glossary... if 
Editors send their new definitions to the QA glossary Editors AND 
it's even easier to maintain than 3 glossaries in 3 specifications.

>2.) In any case, some terms may not be appropriate for the general 
>QA Glossary.

So we can add them :) all people would benefit of these definitions. 
The efforts of glossary inside W3C is to collect in one place all the 
used terms to avoid disparate definitions in different documents 
which become rapidly unmaintanable.

>3.) Appropriate terms may eventually migrate into QA Glossary, with 
>an appropriate definition for that document.


>4.) It is appropriate and desirable in a per-Framework "Definitions" 
>section to supplement and expand upon the generic, terse QA Glossary 
>definitions, in the style of some of the WAI guidelines documents. 
>This allows for contextual, functional, and exemplary information, 
>that relates the term to the context of the particular framework 

it's going against the effort of Olivier and people of the QA Team 
which try to make a global glossary to avoid different definitions of 
the same terms among W3C Specifications.

Karl Dubost / W3C - Conformance Manager

      --- Be Strict To Be Cool! ---
Received on Thursday, 17 October 2002 02:54:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:14:28 UTC