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

approval of "Intro" and its issue resolutions

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2003 14:59:33 -0600
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030902143647.02b3b190@localhost>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org

QAWG --

If you care about QAF-Introduction and disposition of its last call 
comments, please have a quick look at these documents.

**Except for one** ... I have drafted issue resolutions for all Last Call 
issues.  See the rough Intro Disposition of Comments (DoC) [3].  I called 
it "rough" because the intial boiler-plate text needs to be replaced (it's 
for OpsGL).

The One Exception:  I don't know what to say about LC-112.4 [2].  It asks, 
"Can you recommend a process by which the [WG's] QA people are NOT the 
people who work on the deliverable?" (and goes on with considerably more 
explanation and detail).  I'd be happy to have some suggestions, how to 
answer.  E.g., "no".  Or, is this a topic for OpsGL?  for OpsET?  for 
SpecGL?  for SpecET?  (For "Intro", which is where we have it classified.)

The new "Working Group Note" version of Intro [1] is very substantially 
revised.  Basically, Susan Lesch provided complete alternate text with her 
LC-68 issue.  It simplifies and consolidates the existing stuff.  After 
careful review, I liked it much better and adopted it wholesale.  I then 
applied any other Intro LC issues that still applied, and wrote all of the 
dispositions.

-Lofton.

[1] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2003/09/qaframe-intro-20030901.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/lc-issues.html#x112
[3] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2003/09/Intro-DoC.html
Received on Tuesday, 2 September 2003 16:59:30 GMT

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