At 03:44 PM 10/17/02 +0900, Karl Dubost wrote: >Lofton, > >At 10:07 -0600 2002-10-14, Lofton Henderson wrote: >>1.) It should not be closed until we discuss issue #19 and consider the >>request to reverse that issue's resolution. >> >>2.) I *do not* want it removed or matched to the one in QA Glossary. >>(Note that it points to the one in the QA Glossary, and supplements or >>builds on it -- or at least that was the intention, in line with the >>constraints in the pre-Tokyo issue #19 disposition.) > >You have just forgotten there's a pending action item and that's my fault >about the glossary that should solve your concerns. Well, not really. See explanation in earlier message about issue #19. >1. The QA Glossary will be a dated version file. >So the specification can refer to a stable and specific version of the >glossary. The key issue is not that -- stable dated version. It is the remaining open bit of issue #19. -Lofton.Received on Thursday, 17 October 2002 12:16:55 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:11 GMT