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

Re: QA Framework: Specification Guidelines: Umbrella specification

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2005 07:26:57 -0500
Message-Id: <12b869f4c6280f627deeb8aa56ac9bb8@w3.org>
To: 'www-qa-wg@w3.org' <www-qa-wg@w3.org>


Le 01 fťvr. 2005, ŗ 04:12, Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux a ťcrit :
> 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