- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 10:25:27 -0600
- To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
[I added links to yesterday's WG-discussion draft, reflecting the "Proposal" for the two active priority-change issues.] QAWG -- Any comments on these? Amongst our LC-queued issues and comments, there is a loose end about some priority-change requests. There is still dissent about these two checkpoints' priorities: CP2.3 [1]: ----- KG argues for P2. LH argues to keep P1. No one else has commented. Proposal: P1 (Should we add a clarifying note? Like "W3C allows a WG to have several participants per Member, and it is up to the WG to determine any further restrictions, composition by specialty, etc.") CP3.2 [2]: ----- XML Schema wanted P1 instead of P3. QAWG tentatively agreed. KG argued for P2, LH agrees. No one else has commented. Proposal: P2 Note ----- We have consensus on: CP3.2 -- leave it at P2 (contra XML Schema, who wanted P1) CP8.2 -- change from P2 to P1. CP4.5 -- change from P1 to P2. Regards, -Lofton. [1] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2003/05/qaframe-ops-20030514#Ck-call-for-participation [2] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2003/05/qaframe-ops-20030514#Ck-support-spec-version
Received on Thursday, 15 May 2003 12:22:53 UTC