Re: Review of Test Guidelines

Karl Dubost wrote:

> Hi Jeremy,
> 
> I will reply to your mails in details later on (I'm on holiday this week.)
> 


Above and beyond the call of duty.

> 1. Thank you very much for your comments. It's always valuable to have 
> them and progress. Would you like to join the QA WG?


No - too busy. Also I doubt I subscribe to your charter ...


Paragraph 2 of section 2

mentions conformance testing

I am increasingly convinced that conformance testing is not appropriate for 
W3C other than document validators.

I haven't looked at the WAI conformance testing ...


> 2. New WDs will be published soon and they address some of your comments 
> I think. We added and removed things at the last F2F.


Probably, but I suspect the bulk of my comments are not addressable without 
more work than I expect you to do.

> 3. Would you like to be the QA contact for the OWL WG as well? So it 
> will be beneficial for us to have your valuable input and experience.
> 


I think it is relevant for you to remember editors of Test documents as a 
significant part of the W3C community; in the discussion on the 
specification guidelines it was clear that I was somewhat more extreme than 
some members (but no means all) of the WebOnt WG.



> More comments on Monday.
> 
> Best regards.

Jeremy

Received on Tuesday, 1 July 2003 13:59:05 UTC