W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > August 2005

Re: Agenda: August 22 2005 QA WG Telconf

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 09:54:47 -0600
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20050822094807.01a25040@localhost>
To: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Cc: "'www-qa-wg@w3.org'" <www-qa-wg@w3.org>

At 10:51 AM 8/22/2005 -0400, Karl Dubost wrote:


>Le 2005-08-22 ŗ 09:54, Lofton Henderson a ťcrit :
>>Could we put the previous version back in place at that URI while
>>we sort out the new version?
>
>I can if you want. No troubles with that.
>
>>(Or rather ... maybe the version which I delivered to Karl prior to
>>Dublin, for the restyling work -- that pre-Dublin version had
>>improved alignment with REC SpecGL and had back links to the
>>corresponding REC SpecGL sections.)
>
>which is the version which is online right now.

SpecGL points to this version:
http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2004/08/SpecGL-template-text.html

Right now, that is the new-formatted version (which doesn't work in IE).  I 
was suggesting that the version that I mailed to you (but not to the QAWG 
list) the week before Dublin ... that is the best version, until we sort 
out the IE problem.



>>More.  Aside from the problem of styling in IE,
>
>Which I will fix today.

Okay.

Should we also finish a content review before making it the linked public 
version?  E.g., the intro material, "About this template", also needs to be 
updated for the new format.  (Plus I mentioned that some items like Step 3 
looked like some reviewing might be needed.)


>>I think we ought to review the individual sections.  For example
>>(looking at my local desktop copy of the previous template), I
>>think there are some changes to Step 3 that are not purely
>>stylistic.  But I haven't had time for a careful side-by-side
>>review of the corresponding sections yet.
>
>I changed the reordering. I didn't change the prose of sections.
>Except that I have changed the [Include the usual boilerplate] by the
>boilerplate.

Okay, I'll look again.


>And the section of descriptive/imperative style is almost the same
>but it needs work.

Yes, that caught my atttention also.

-Lofton.
Received on Monday, 22 August 2005 15:55:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Monday, 22 August 2005 15:55:30 GMT