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

Confusion about Kirill's comments

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 15:01:09 -0600
Message-Id: <>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org

Sorting out some confusion about which CPs we were discussing, and Kirill's 

At 06:12 PM 5/12/03 +0200, Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux wrote:
>  #d remaining sub-issues of LC72
>  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2003May/0008.html
>  LH: 72.OG-5 about priority for CP 3.2
>  ... raising it from 3 to 1 since this is a critical info for test
>  ... I agree with the commentor
>  ... which would also mean raising the priority for 8.2
>  ... Not supporting errata and versioning seems really important
>  KG: concerns about "versions"... Versions define new specs altogether
>  LH: maybe we should clarify and speak about "editions" rather than
>  [agreement on OG-5 and 13]
>  KG: I think 8.1 should be raised to Priority 2 at the same time
>  LH: no strong feeling about it
>mai 12 17:50:29 <Zakim> -Lynne
>  [clarification on a confusion on what CP were being discussed]
>  KG: I think 8.2 should only be priority 2
>  [?]

As I understood it finally, Kirill meant CP3.2 instead of CP8.1.  So as I 
understand Kirill's positions:

** okay with to raise CP8.2 (vers/errata in maintenance procedures) to P1,

** wants to raise CP3.2 (v/e support capability built into TM deliverables) 
to P2 (instead of Commentor's suggested P1).

Kirill, can you please reply and repeat your rationale?  We should be able 
to finish closing this with a little email discussion.


>  DM: new versions usually builds on backward compatibility
>  ... which means that if your test materials support versioning, you can
>keep them as long as they don't become moot
>  KG: I think priority 1 CP are pretty sensitive
>  ... if we have too many of them, that will affect the implementability
>of the GL
>  ... will restart the discussion on the mailing list
>  LH: OG-72
>  ... (about a sentence in the discussion)
>  ... mainly editorial since not in a normative part
>  ... but prefered to check that there was no objection to the change
>  [no disagreement]
>  LH: all the other issues were pretty much editorial
>  ... which close the subissues
Received on Monday, 12 May 2003 16:58:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:14:30 UTC