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

SpecGL/OpsGL PR entrance criteria

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 09:35:33 -0700
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030115090834.04652ec0@rockynet.com>
To: <www-qa-wg@w3.org>
I would like to revisit one detail from Seattle.  For the SoTD of the Last 
Call documents, we are supposed to preview our intended "CR-exit" criteria 
(which are actually PR entrance criteria).

 From the [Draft] Minutes from QA WG f2f meeting Monday, Jan 06, afternoon:

At 11:51 AM 1/7/03 -0800, Kirill Gavrylyuk wrote:
>[...]
>PR entrance criteria:
>
>Ops GL: To have 2 Working Groups Level A compliant with the Guidelines.
>
>Spec GL: To have 2 specs Level A compliant with the Guidelines.

There is an alternative, which is a lower barrier and meets most or all of 
the CR purposes.  Rather than requiring that two WGs conform completely to 
all of the Priority 1 OpsGL checkpoints, we could require that each P1 
checkpoint is successfully implemented by two WGs.   Similar for SpecGL.

This is the approach that SVG took.  Rather than requiring two complete 
implementations of all of SVG 1.0, it was required that each SVG 1.0 
feature is implemented by two different implementations.

This achieves the CR purpose of demonstrating that each of the requirements 
of the specification is implementable.  Although it could be argued that 
there are other useful purposes that it does not satisfy.

What do you think (all)?

-Lofton.
Received on Wednesday, 15 January 2003 11:33:19 GMT

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