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

comment/proposal on LC-74

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 14:47:19 -0600
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030417102502.01e3fa00@terminal.rockynet.com>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org

(Note.  These comments are not for Friday agenda, probably not for Monday 
... they're for "major re-org issue" day ....)

POLICY PREFACE. My own priority in all issues from now on is ... minimize 
the time and work to publishing a clear and consistent CR for a useful 
SpecGL 1.0. Resist re-opening any old issues, resist broadening issues 
unnecessarily, resist blanket re-org proposals (no matter how appealing), 
etc.  To close all SpecGL and OpsGL issues quickly, I think we must focus 
on fixing serious technical defects, clarifying places where our intent is 
unclear, and consolidating only where it is easy.

Accordingly, I'm going to argue against my blanket re-org proposal of 
LC-74.  It should not be done for SpecGL 1.0.  Save it for SpecGL 2.0, 
similar to how WCAG made a good and useful 1.0, and is revising into 2.0, 
incorporating "lessons learned in practice".

Here's my proposal for resolution of issue #74 disposition, focusing on 
those "easy" consolidations (more or less editorial) should be in scope for 
SpecGL 1.0, and what ones should be out of scope.

Proposal:

1.) reject LC-74 as a whole;  instead, consider these limited specifics...

*** Probably in scope...
2.) consolidate GL3 and GL10 by moving CP10.1 into GL3 and CP10.2 into GL13.
3.) GL11 (conformance claims) and GL12 (ICS rqts) would seem to be a 
comfortable merger.

*** Probably out of scope...
4.) GL4/5/6:  I'm very dubious that the *concepts* -- 
profiles/modules/levels -- can be merged without serious loss.  But more 
later on that (in progress AIs).  (It is possible that the 7 existing 
checkpoints could be put under one GL -- still identifying each of the 
three concepts as a separate DoV --and I presently have no strong feeling 
about that.  If so, then 4.3, 5.2, 6.1 could be editorially combined.)

Note.  I'm going to make fuller comments on prof/mod/lev issue separately, 
for input into that ongoing topic.

Regards,
-Lofton.
Received on Thursday, 17 April 2003 16:45:28 GMT

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