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

Re: Draft minutes of Jan 5, 2005 telecon

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 17:43:18 -0700
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20050106173758.044cfd30@localhost>
To: Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Cc: QAWG <www-qa-wg@w3.org>

At 09:23 AM 1/6/2005 +0100, Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux wrote:
>[...]
> > KD: we have been told during CR that we must have two complete 
> implementations
>
>should read "We had been told at our previous CR transition call that we
>must show 2 complete implementations"

This confuses me.  The criterion that is used by SVG and almost everyone 
else is:  show two implementations of each feature.

That is very different from two complete implementations.  Are we really 
being held to "two complete implementations"?  If so, why is that being 
applied to QAWG, but to no other WGs?

(This point is separate from and in addition to my belief that W3C, in 
defining the CR criteria of a specification like SpecGL, should not 
necessarily blindly follow the practices that are applied to Web technologies.)

-Lofton.
Received on Friday, 7 January 2005 00:43:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:19 GMT