- From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
- Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 15:06:54 -0400
- To: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>, Brian Kelly <b.kelly@ukoln.ac.uk>
- Cc: www-qa@w3.org
At 10:35 AM 2001-10-22 , Alex Rousskov wrote: > >> Would addressing this issue be within the scope of the QA activity? > >Not in my opinion. QA can encourage WGs to develop and use terminology >documents, but it should be WGs responsibility to define the terms >they use. Besides, "Web terminology" is too broad of a scope to allow >for practical standardization (IMHO). > A finite objective that would be a quality topic IMHO is a simple "best practices" output on handling Terms of Art in the W3C process. This includes standards for when a Term of Art is used, how to review supposed Terms of Art for elimination, adjustment or adoption, and how to handle Terms of Art in the corpus of W3C publications. Debriefing Ian Jacobs about the jargon wars over the UAAG would be instructive in this regard. Benchmarking practices in industry and academia would be a good idea in developing this note. Al >Alex. >
Received on Monday, 22 October 2001 14:57:58 UTC