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

Re: Revised outreach presentation outline "ask us"

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 13:04:49 -0700
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030227125400.045326c0@rockynet.com>
To: David Marston/Cambridge/IBM <david_marston@us.ibm.com>, www-qa-wg@w3.org

All (but esp. The Outreach Five) --

I share David's concern -- each of The Outreach Five would need uniform 
familiarity with each case study -- and this was behind my suggested 
rewording.  I worked with SVG, so I can answer about it.  I have only 
"hearsay" knowledge of DOM and SOAP.

If we can put together talking points for each of the three, along the 
lines that David suggested, that's fine.

I was under the impression that we thought we wouldn't have time before 
Boston, and so we were going to take the evasive way out:  "here are three 
case studies, where the WGs have done significant TS development, and 
positively believe that the effort has more than paid for itself. Talk to 
'em for details of their experience."

(Actually, I was going to ask Chris Lilley, SVG Chair, for permission to 
refer people to him for a testimonial).

I'll do a talking points for SVG, if that is the decision.

Thoughts?

-Lofton.

At 01:18 PM 2/27/03 -0500, David Marston/Cambridge/IBM wrote:

> >>>   Ask us about DOM, SOAP, SVG...
>
> >> Possible alternative.  "Ask DOM, SOAP, SVG about their experience"
>
> >Different meaning. "Ask us" is more direct (you can get the data
> >immediately after the presentation). "Ask them" is likely to take
> >longer, but (hopefully) the endorsement would carry more weight. I
> >can go either way. Does anyone else have an opinion?
>
>If they might be asking me, I need "talking points" that summarize
>what/where/who for each of those WGs. (e.g., DOM found that X helped
>them achieve Y better/faster/whatever. Ask [person] for details.)
>.................David Marston
Received on Thursday, 27 February 2003 15:04:26 GMT

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