- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 07:34:54 -0600
- To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
QAWG [yes, right list this time!], Ignoring my blunder of sending this previously to the wrong list... Is there some reason that we are not implementing the minuted resolution (quoted, below attached) to modify GP11? The change would not only resolve the dispute with Bjoern and Al, but IMO was an improvement to SpecGL. I.e., I like it regardless of that dispute. It allows tie-breaker rule where applicable, but does not force it where inappropriate. -Lofton. [1] http://www.w3.org/QA/Group/2005/05/qaframe-spec/#formal-language-gp (2004/05/23 draft) At 11:19 AM 5/23/2005 -0600, Lofton Henderson wrote: >[...changed to www-qa-wg...] > >I need clarification. What is in the current text (2005/05/23, [1]) does >not reflect my memory of our decisions, nor the minutes of 9 May telecon, >from which I excerpt this discussion and its resolution: > >>[...] DH suggested that maybe some text should be added to the effect >>that, when there is such a discrepancy on formal vs. prose, the WG should >>publish >>an erratum, but that it would be good to have an interim "tie-breaker" >>for the >>reasons mentioned previously. KD stated that conflicts are not acceptable, >>and publishing errata to resolve conflicts should be encouraged. TB raised >>concern about conflict vs. error in this regard. LH likes the >>wording from Al Gilman on this matter as a base, and then >>add a sentence strongly recommending (in non-normative language) to publish >>errata when inconsistencies of this nature arise. KD also suggested pointing >>to the part of the W3C Process Document which addresses errata in this >>sentence. >> >>ACTION: DM to take Al Gilman wording and add erratum recommendation sentence >>(as described previously) by Wednesday. > >Al's wording was the compromise that allowed the WG to include a >tie-breaker rule when it thought such was appropriate, but did not >*require* it. Al reaffirms in his 1st message of today that such was >okay: "Asserting a precedence that the development group genuinely >believes in is fine. Requiring a precedence in the absence of that >collective opinion is counter-productive." > >SUMMARY. We agreed with Al's wording, we resolved to put it in the spec, >but we didn't do it. > >Am I missing something? > >-Lofton. > > >At 06:15 PM 5/23/2005 +0200, Dominique Hazaël-Massieux wrote: >>Le lundi 23 mai 2005 à 12:03 -0400, Al Gilman a écrit : >> > "Formal vs prose language normativity" >> > >> > .. for which the QA Working Group has failed to do due diligence to >> > resolve the issue. >> >>I think it's unfair to say we have failed in this regard; my last post >>on this was sent on Friday, and I'm still waiting for a reply from Ian >>on the topic. >> >> > That is to say a phalanx of consistent comment from customers has been >> > ignored, and the Working Group has left an ill-considered requirement >> > in the document. >> >>Although I disagree the requirement is ill-considered, it seems pretty >>clear to me that there is a lack of consensus on the matter, and I think >>the WG should revisit its wording to allow for more flexibility on how >>to deal with the perceived problem. Typically, instead of saying >>"explain which takes precedence", we could simply say "there are often >>extensive overalap between prose and formal language, so beware of any >>discrepancies between them" or something like that. >> >>(I expect the QA WG will discuss this next week, although I won't attend >>that call) >> >>Dom >>-- >>Dominique Hazaël-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/ >>W3C/ERCIM >>mailto:dom@w3.org > >
Received on Tuesday, 24 May 2005 13:34:48 UTC