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

Re: for Wednesday agenda

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 08:15:19 -0600
Message-Id: <>
To: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org

At 07:16 PM 9/16/02 -0400, Karl Dubost wrote:
>Hi Lofton,
>thanks for the Agenda and the schedule of Publication,
>At 9:07 -0600 2002-09-16, Lofton Henderson wrote:
>>3.) OpsET & SpecET -- uncertain, possibly slip a little and publish after 
>>the GL parts.
>>"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?
>Do you want a new version of the SpecGL Examples and Techniques before 
>Tokyo F2F? I can work on that. And I think it could clarify some bits :)

That would be useful.  We don't yet have a public version, not even at the 
WG-only level of exposure (i.e., nothing linked from 

>I have maybe things to add the agenda of Wednesday.
>- Language and Clarity in our QA Specifications. I will explain wednesday 
>what I mean, and what we can do about it. A few bits now:
>         I have asked for a review to someone inside W3C Team of the Spec 
> Guideline who will be a virgin reader (only a few knowledge of W3C WG 
> life), I asked for a harsh review.

I'll add this to the Wednesday agenda.

>- Publication calendar was one of my request to have a table on the QA 
>Website with the planned dates of publication.

We can make an AI to add this to the web site (after we discuss and agree 
the dates).

Received on Tuesday, 17 September 2002 10:14:21 UTC

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