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

RE: for Wednesday agenda

From: Kirill Gavrylyuk <kirillg@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 10:12:59 -0700
Message-ID: <B3F0DACD72892E4DB7E8296C6C9FC2F60507541F@red-msg-03.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Lofton Henderson" <lofton@rockynet.com>, <www-qa-wg@w3.org>

Minor correction/update for the TestGL/TestET plans:

- 15-20th of November( 2-3 weeks after OpsGL/SpecGL): 
TestGL will go FPWD. Will NOT publish TestET separately at that time,
but TestGL will have some Examples/Techniques embedded.

- 15/20th of January (2-3 weeks after OpsGL/SpecGL go Last Call)
TestGL/TestET will go to 2nd WD (not the Last Call yet).

Thanks

-----Original Message-----
From: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com] 
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2002 8:07 AM
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
Subject: for Wednesday agenda


QAWG participants,

A more detailed agenda will follow by the end of today, but I want to
send 
this topic so that you will have more time to check out the references.

Before I went on vacation, the lead editors of the Framework documents
had 
a teleconference.  Here are our preliminary conclusions about the
Framework 
publication schedule.  The existing proposed schedule was:  all 7 parts
to 
Last Call at end of January, and next publication of all 7 parts in /TR/
by 
1 November.

With our current resources, we don't think this is achievable.  Here are

our current thoughts for a modified schedule:

1.) possibly slip the TestGL and TestET (examples & techniques) parts 
behind the others by 2-3 weeks.

2.) publish Intro, OpsGL, SpecGL per original schedule (1 November and
end 
January)

3.) OpsET & SpecET -- uncertain, possibly slip a little and publish
after 
the GL parts.

#3 is "uncertain", because there are still some uncertainties about how
the 
ET parts relate to the GL parts, and there is an open issue (issue 68,
[0]) 
about the ultimate status of these parts -- 
Recommendation?  Note?  Other?  Issue #68 refers to issue #67, which
deals 
with the scope of the parts -- examples, or techniques, or both?  While 
issue #67 is "Closed", it alludes to some additional issues about how
the 
GL-ET parts relate to each other, which issues have not yet been
enumerated 
as separate issues.  To quote:

"Techniques will raise a number of additional issues: must (can) the 
enumeration be exhaustive? how precise (i.e., verifiable) can these be
in 
diverse operational, specification, and test environments?"

Lurking here also is the question (issue):  What role, if any, do the 
techniques in the ET parts play in the determination of conformance to
the 
specific requirements of the GL parts?

Although we need not necessarily be constrained by WAI's GL-ET work, on
the 
other hand it provides a body of existing practice (the only such body?)

that we can look at.  Before the telecon, please have a look at one or
more 
of the GL/ET pairs, [1]..[6].

-Lofton.

[0] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/qawg-issues-html#x68

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WAI-WEBCONTENT-19990505/
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-HTML-TECHS/

[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG10/
[4] http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG10-TECHS/

[5] http://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG10/
[6] http://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG10-TECHS/
Received on Monday, 16 September 2002 13:13:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:10 GMT