W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > April 2003

LC-55 action [was Re: [Draft] Minutes from QA WG Teleconf 2003/03/31]

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2003 16:14:38 -0600
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030408161134.02ade6d0@terminal.rockynet.com>
To: <www-qa-wg@w3.org>

2nd Question.

Like LC-1, I believe that LC-55 has an associated action item.  I believe 
that the action is:  "Refer proposal to Pubrules/Comm team".

Do we agree that this is the AI?

Who's responsible?  This should be our Comm Liaison.  I think that is Dom.

When?  Dom should name a date.

-Lofton.

At 03:49 PM 4/8/03 -0600, Lofton Henderson wrote:

>I have a question about the resolution of LC-1...
>
>At 09:41 PM 4/2/03 -0800, Kirill Gavrylyuk wrote:
>>[...]
>>DH: LC1,55. Should we talk about security, accessibility. Suggested that 
>>these considerations are out of scope of QA Framework and SpecGL specifically.
>>LR: Suggest to list them in the document but mention that they are out of 
>>scope.
>>MS: Why not just not addressing them at all.
>>KG: I think these both are covered already by saying authors should avoid 
>>undefined functionality.
>>LH: I don't think we are covering it - that would be a stretch. But I 
>>think it is out of scope.
>>KD: I think it is out of scope of these guidelines.
>>PC, All seconded: We should also write a sentence narrowing the scope of 
>>the document.
>>DH: Could Patrick word the sentence? We should try to see who could 
>>address the rule to have security and accessibility in W3C specs.
>>LH: Should we enumerate things that are out of scope?
>>PC: I think that would lead us on that slippery slope.
>>MS: I agree. We should just have a general sentence specifying what is 
>>out of scope, but not enumerating them.
>>Action Item: Patrick to write in-scope/out of scope statement. ETA - next 
>>Monday.
>>DH: Agreed on resolution for LC1 and 55.
>>DH: Next LC14. [...]
>
>Didn't we also agree that the topic of LC-1 has merit, and we would refer 
>to someone else like Comm or TAG (probably not) or ...?
>
>Who are we going to refer it to, and who has the action to do it?
>
>-Lofton.
>
Received on Tuesday, 8 April 2003 18:13:02 GMT

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