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

Re: OpsGL Issue -- feedback requested

From: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 08:02:28 -0500
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20021031080148.01bfbce8@mailserver.nist.gov>
To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>, www-qa-wg@w3.org

I would agree with
Or do you agree that I can make this change -- combine 5.5 into 5.4 as 
another MUST requirement?)

Regards,
Lynne


At 01:02 PM 10/30/2002, Lofton Henderson wrote:

>QAWG,
>
>In the process of working on OpsGL for publication, I came upon an oddity 
>in Checkpoint 5.4 [1] and 5.5 [2].  CK5.4 is priority 2, and requires 
>"Define review procedures...".  CK5.5 is priority 1, and specifies minimal 
>required content for the reviews-procedure definition that is specified in 
>CK5.4.
>
>Aside from the oddity of the priorities, it seems to me that 5.5 ought to 
>be a second MUST requirement for 5.4, not a separate checkpoint.
>
>Does anyone disagree with this, i.e., should we make this an issue and 
>discuss it?  (Or do you agree that I can make this change -- combine 5.5 
>into 5.4 as another MUST requirement?)
>
>Regards,
>Lofton.
>
>[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-qaframe-ops-20020515/#Ck-proc-define-licenses
>[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-qaframe-ops-20020515/#Ck-review-criteria
Received on Thursday, 31 October 2002 08:09:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:11 GMT