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

Re: Should SpecGL be a spec?

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 11:50:31 -0600
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020905114030.03ee7e20@rockynet.com>
To: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>, www-qa@w3.org

Alex,

I think we (QAWG and authors) agree completely, practice what we 
preach.  We are aware that this (2nd published) WD falls short in a number 
of ways.  You have pointed out a number of issues that fall in this 
category.  SpecGL will certainly be conforming by Last Call 
(anticipated:  1-Feb-2003) -- I can't imagine that we'd have the nerve to 
put out a document with our names on it otherwise!

As an exercise, one of the QAWG members will be measuring SpecGL against 
itself.  This may happen against this draft, or against the next published 
draft (anticipated:  1-nov-2002), or both.

Thanks for the comment,
-Lofton.

At 10:56 AM 9/5/02 -0600, Alex Rousskov wrote:


>I have a meta-question about SpecGL. Should SpecGL be an
>AAA-Conforming spec itself? Why not practice what we preach?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Alex.
>
>--
>                             | HTTP performance - Web Polygraph benchmark
>www.measurement-factory.com | HTTP compliance+ - Co-Advisor test suite
>                             | all of the above - PolyBox appliance
Received on Thursday, 5 September 2002 13:50:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 12:13:59 GMT