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

ET schedule and Issue #68

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 16:33:59 -0600
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020918154217.02d25ec0@rockynet.com>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
QAWG,

Here is a proposal our near-future publication schedule, and for Issue 
#68.  Your feedback is requested.  I have also attached some rough notes 
that I have taken during my looking at the various parts of WCAG, ATAG, and 
UAAG -- no action requested, they are just FYI in case you're interested.

Publication proposal
=====

** Publish OpsGL and SpecGL Working Drafts in /TR/ on 1 November as planned 
(and publish their Last Call around 31 January).

** Whatever is the best document versions of OpsET and SpecET that we have 
on 1 Nov., post them in /QA/WG/.  We must do this, because the GL need to 
have something to point to (per-checkpoint links).

** Make the GL-to-ET links point to the OpsET and SpecET re-directs in /QA/WG/.

** Update, improve, and replace the actual OpsET and SpecET documents as 
aggressively as our schedule and resources permit.  For example, if we can 
have better versions in late November, then we would put them in WG space 
and change the re-directs (this updating would be noted in the SoTD, and in 
each document's "Change History" section.)

This is very similar to what WAI has done, but WAI's Techniques parts are 
in /TR/ as "W3C Note".   In particular, those Notes have changed one or 
more times since their GL parts were published.  The WAI GL parts point 
(per-checkpoint) to "Latest Version" URL of the ET parts.  (Similarly for 
the ET-to-GL per-checkpoint links.)

Issue #68
=====

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

In the telecon, a straw poll favored keeping the ET parts in WG space, but 
it was not unanimous.  I think my own preference now is Option #3, 
"Other".  I favor keeping the parts in WG space, nominally called "Working 
Draft" (as now), with TR-level quality, while the GL parts progress through 
a series of published WDs.

At that point in the future where the GL parts have reached their "final" 
status (Note, Recommendation, whatever), I think I would favor that the ET 
parts be published in /TR/ as "W3C Note".  It is possible that we could 
make the transition earlier, if we deem that the parts (both GL and ET) are 
stabilizing sufficiently.

(I do not feel very strongly about where the ET parts reside 
ultimately.  But I think we might appreciate the flexibility of keeping 
them in WG space, e.g., we could update them monthly, which is our nominal 
goal for WG drafts of Framework documents.)

Thoughts?  (Especially, thoughts of those who preferred /TR/ instead of WG 
space.)

-Lofton.

Received on Wednesday, 18 September 2002 18:32:56 GMT

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