W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > March 2004

AI done [was Re: QA WG/IG F2F Tuesday March 2nd afternoon]

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2004 10:56:46 -0700
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20040307103830.02f97e70@localhost>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
Cc: ij@w3.org

At 05:05 PM 3/2/2004 +0100, Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux wrote:
>[...]
>AI LH to check with Ian wrt WG Note vs WD by 2004-03-08

I executed this AI.  I had a chat with Ian in the lobby at TP.  I copied 
him on this in case he'd like to comment further.

I explained our current scheme:

1.) XxxGL (normative guidelines spec in /TR/ points to Xxx-extech in /QA/WG 
space
(for current Xxx = Ops or Spec or Test)

2.) Xxx-extech is a *dated* redirect that points to the actual 
corresponding Examples & Techniques in /QA/WG/ space
(*dated*, because the redirect is paired to the dated GL document, but the 
ET document that the redirect points to can evolve between /TR/ 
publications of the GL document).

3.) The ET documents are maintained as "WG Note"
(we did this because they are informative, and we thought that they should 
not be WD-CR-PR-Rec if they contained no normative content.)

Bottom line:  Ian thinks our application of W3C Process is reasonable, and 
had additional comments/suggestions.  Specifically:

a.) "WG Note" is okay for ET document status (and QAF-Intro, as well), 
despite some fuzzy implications to the contrary in W3C Process ("...for 
documents on which the WG has finished work.")  Different WGs have taken 
different approaches to purely companion documents like Primer, Intro, etc 
-- some use rec-track status, some use "WG Note".

b.) Our scheme for ExTech documents is reasonable, allowing them to evolve 
and improve between publications of their normative GL specs.

Ian had a suggestion, that I'm not able to capture very well from memory 
(in case he'd like to comment further):

c.) Preserve a snapshot of the ExTech document at each GL publication in 
/TR/; said snapshot to be in /TR/ (?I think?).

That would probably be easy enough to do, once we sort out exactly what and 
where for the snapshot.

Regards,
-Lofton.
Received on Sunday, 7 March 2004 12:58:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:15 GMT