Le 01 févr. 2005, à 04:12, Dominique Hazaël-Massieux a écrit : > FWIW, I kind of agree with Gary that it doesn't make much sense to > define the term if we don't use it at all in SpecGL; in which case it > might be a better fit for ViS, for instance. Not many people will read ViS. > (BTW, it may be a bit better to answer to commenters only when the WG > has discussed the comment and agreed on a common position, to avoid > getting them confused as to what our definitive answer is - although > getting discussion on www-qa is also certainly a good way to move > forward) I'm not the QA WG. And the discussion are here to try as you said to push forward the discussion, more than discussing the issue in a teleconf, not knowing exactly what the person meant, and have to go back to the list to ask for clarifications. I don't think the QA WG members don't have the right to comment even with argue about a point. The final decision being the resolution of the WG, but I think the debate is worthwhile. If you agree with Gary, tell it :) I don't mind, discordant voices in a debate are fine. -- Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/ W3C Conformance Manager *** Be Strict To Be Cool ***Received on Tuesday, 1 February 2005 12:27:01 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:19 GMT