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

Proposed resolutions for procedural issues in CR comments

From: Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 17:44:58 +0100
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1079541895.28243.71.camel@stratustier>
Le mer 17/03/2004 ŗ 17:11, Lofton Henderson a ťcrit :
> An action item [1] belonging to you is past due.
> [1] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/ActionItems
> AI-20040126-3 DH,  to send a proposed answer to procedural issues

http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2004/02/cr-issues

I believe issues 3/32 (Rec-track documents should not constrain the WGs
or their specifications) have already a detailed enough proposal, namely
that our documents do not mandate any WG to follow them ; we agreed on
making an editorial clarification in Ops in this regard, but given that
OpsGl is going to be turned into a handbook, I think that make this moot
anyway. I think CR-32 can be closed per [1], but we still need to close
the loop with WebOnt before closing CR-3.

Regarding CR-33, CR-34, CR-41, the fact that we're moving our documents
back to WD has been said as satisfying the commenter (which is again
confirmed in [1]), so they can be closed.

CR-36 is still pending as far as I can tell, since we don't have yet a
plan to amend our charter with regard to conformance to our own
documents, nor have we yet defined the conformance models of our new
documents.

Dom

1. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2004Mar/0012.html
-- 
Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/
W3C/ERCIM
mailto:dom@w3.org


Received on Wednesday, 17 March 2004 11:45:04 GMT

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