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

TCDL new version

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 09:13:59 -0600
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20031021091230.03095b00@localhost>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
David's new version (for f2f discussion) is at:

http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2003/10/tcdl-20031013.html


>Sensitivity:
>To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
>Subject: TCDL for discussion
>X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.7  March 21, 2001
>From: david_marston@us.ibm.com
>Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 10:07:33 -0400
>X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on WTFMAIL02/WTF/M/Lotus(Build 
>V651_10162003NP|October
>  16, 2003) at 10/21/2003 10:08:17 AM
>X-IMAIL-SPAM-DNSBL: (SpamCop,94568572,127.0.0.2)
>X-RCPT-TO: <lofton@rockynet.com>
>X-SpamCatcher-Score: 10
>X-SpamCatcher-IP: 127.0.0.1
>X-SpamCatcher-1: 521110e1c18ca83e0e4d33327e6a282a
>
>
>---------------------- Forwarded by David Marston/Cambridge/IBM on 
>10/21/2003 10:06 AM ---------------------------
>
>From:        David Marston on 10/13/2003 04:55 PM
>
>To:        Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
>cc:
>
>Subject:        TCDL for discussion
>
>Below is a copy of the document for discussion within the WG. So far, I
>haven't heard any objections to it being put into WG space.
>
>Here is the transmittal message:
>"This draft shows the general organization of the TCDL 1.0 document. I
>called it 1.0 to pave the way for a committee-written version in the
>future, should it prove necessary after more extensive field use.
>Nevertheless, I think the full TCDL 1.0 will apply to a broad range of
>classes of product and will also suffice for large suites that last over
>several versions of their target specs. The ultimate document will be
>about 6-8 times as large as this, mostly in chapters 3 and 4. An example
>section of chapters 2 and 3 is provided, but no section anywhere in the
>document should be assumed to be at full length. Sections of chapter 1 are
>nearly full length, at least in my view. My main question for the WG right
>now: is this document likely to serve for at least a couple years, so tha
>QAWG can turn its attention to complementary material and practices?"
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 21 October 2003 11:21:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:14 GMT