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

Re: OpsGL progress & question

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 11:07:02 -0700
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030122110149.032ffec0@rockynet.com>
To: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org

Thanks for the feedback...

At 07:22 AM 1/22/03 -0500, Lynne Rosenthal wrote:

>I think the rationale is desirable and should be included to tell the 
>reader why we have the checkpoint.  However, there are some checkpoints 
>for which the reason they are there is obvious and a rationale added 
>nothing (no new information).  In these cases, I rather not have the rationale.

All -- I would be happy to entertain specific suggestions.  I have received 
a couple already:  remove 4.4 Rationale; 3.1 Rationale doesn't add much to 
what Discussion already says.

Other suggestion are welcome.   (e.g., Remove CPx.y Rationale; or 
definitely add one to CPz.w).

-Lofton.

>At 02:47 PM 1/21/2003, Lofton Henderson wrote:
>
>>QAWG participants --
>>
>>We can handle this by email, rather than taking meeting time.  But I'd 
>>appreciate your feedback sooner, rather than later, if you are willing to 
>>comment.
>>
>>At [1] is an editor-draft of OpsGL.  It contains all of the substantive 
>>issue resolutions (see the Change History), for example the new 
>>commitment table.  I'm in progress with the resolution to add "Rationale" 
>>to the checkpoints.  It is slower going than I expected.  I have done GL2 
>>through part of GL5, and a couple bits of GL6.
>>
>>Question:  Do we need a rationale for every checkpoint?
>>
>>         a.) Yes (before LC)?
>>         b.) Desirable but not necessary (before LC)?
>>         c.) No, not even desirable?
>>
>>If your answer is #b or #c, perhaps you would be willing to provide a 
>>little more input -- which CPs ought to have Rationale, that currently do 
>>not?  (If your answer was #c, which CPs ought NOT to have a rationale?)
>>
>>Any other comments are welcome, also (implementation of any issues, 
>>wording of any Rationale, etc).
>>
>>Thanks,
>>-Lofton.
>>
>>
>>[1] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2003/01/qaframe-ops-20030120.html
>
Received on Wednesday, 22 January 2003 13:04:47 GMT

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