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

Re: QAH final editors draft

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 13:33:19 -0400
Message-Id: <D66BDA1A-A010-4672-AFBE-FDB9DCE4E75A@w3.org>
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>

Hi Lofton,

Le 05-08-31 à 13:50, Lofton Henderson a écrit :
>> # Good Practice 1: Decide as soon as possible — will the Working  
>> Group build test materials or acquire them?
>> # Good Practice 2: Think about and enumerate the quality-related  
>> deliverables that might help the Working Group through the  
>> Recommendation track.
>> # Good Practice 3: Synchronize quality-related deliverables and  
>> their development milestones with specification milestones.
> These are a bit long for the toc/index layout.  The ideal solution  
> would be a careful rewrite to shorten the GLs and GPs themselves,  
> and move extra wording into "What means", "Why care", etc.  But  
> that's too much work for now.

Yes I really that would be the ideal solution for it.

> Should we abbreviate the representation of the GPs in the index?   
> For example:
>> # Good Practice 1: ... build test materials or acquire them?
>> # Good Practice 2: ... enumerate the quality-related deliverables ...
>> # Good Practice 3: Synchronize quality-related deliverables ...  
>> with specification milestones.

No I don't think that's a good idea.

I would propose two options:

1. that we publish with long sentences now and take an action for the  
QA IG to republish with rewriting of the sentences.

2. That we hold on the publication rewriting the publication and the  
sentences with a deadline to work out or if a volunteer want to  
tackle the sentences.

Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager
*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Friday, 2 September 2005 17:33:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:14:36 UTC