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

RE: for Wednesday agenda

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 14:43:51 -0600
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020916143828.02ae5c40@rockynet.com>
To: "Kirill Gavrylyuk" <kirillg@microsoft.com>
Cc: <www-qa-wg@w3.org>

Kirill,

Thanks for filling in the details on the TestGL plans.  An apparent typo 
below...

At 10:12 AM 9/16/02 -0700, Kirill Gavrylyuk wrote:
>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).

Should be "February", not "January" (since we want to go to Last Call at 
the *end* of January on the other parts).

-Lofton.


>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 16:42:52 GMT

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