Re: QA Ops Guidelines and SVG WG

If I might throw in my two cents...

At 01:19 AM 11/4/03 +0100, Chris Lilley wrote:
>[...] were told that the whole project
>was dropped and W3C would not be doing this after all.
>
>If we heard wrong, please confirm.

We haven't gotten that news yet  ;-)

(Do you know something that we don't?)


>We are, meanwhile, in the midst of an effort to really expand the SVG
>Tiny test suite, because we thought it was a good idea to do so. And a
>third party might be interested in doing compliance testing against
>this.
>
>KD> We would like to encourage you to participate to this effort. We would
>KD> like also to inform you that if you need someone from the QA WG coming
>KD> on your teleconferences call or at a WG F2F, we will be happy to
>KD> explain it.

I have been working to catch up with copious SVG email dialog about test, 
profile, and conformance from the past 2 months.  Almost caught up 
now!  After being away or in f2f for 6 of the last 8 weeks, I also will 
resume regular participation in telecons (incl. tomorrow, Tues).

The next two SVG F2F are problematic -- Paris and Sydney -- because of lean 
travel budget.  But I plan to participate remotely if possible.

Bottom line ... I ought to be able (as a QAWG member) to clarify what's up 
with QA now, and also to help (as an SVG WG member) with QA-related tasks.

-Lofton.