W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa@w3.org > January 2002

Re: Framework documents nature

From: Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 08:33:06 +0100
Message-Id: <200201080733.g087X6C28315@zidane.inria.fr>
To: Mark Skall <mark.skall@nist.gov>
cc: "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>, www-qa@w3.org

> Coming from a conformance background, I'm still disturbed by providing 
> recommendations rather than requirements when the implications of not 
> following our processes could have a catastrophic impact on 
> interoperability and the quality of implementations.  If we believe what we 
> say about the importance of our activity, and we don't require many of the 
> things we're asking for, then, by our own admission, we are inviting disaster.

I think we should have the same approach as for the WAI guidelines
(Lynne seems to agree with me here): our QA framework specifies
requirements, with various level of importance (MUST, SHOULD, MAY, P1, 
P2, A, AA, etc), and someone else decides what to do with them.

This someone else can be the W3C Advisory Board stating that all WGs
must comply with the QA Framework Spec Guidelines to level AA, or with 
the QA Framework Process Guidelines level A.
Received on Tuesday, 8 January 2002 02:33:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 12:13:58 GMT