- From: David Orchard <david.orchard@bea.com>
- Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 09:35:20 -0800
- To: <www-tag@w3.org>
We skipped over an issue today that pertains to how the TAG communicates findings. I think that TimBL was suggesting that we provide a context document to provide a coherent mechanism for relating issues (resolved and unresolved). I agree with TimBL on this. Indeed, this issue was the first issue that I raised [1]. Further, TimBL suggested a rational approach for proceeding, that is a table of contents that categorizes issues. As issues are resolved, the text is then expanded upon. I see this as being a reasonable process for creating an architecture document. We do not have the time nor mandate to create an arch document top-down, so this bottom's up approach is reasonable. I'd like to raise this is an issue, ie Issue[archdoc-6]: Clarify the process for producing documentation, and what forms of documentation are produced. I also suggest that this architecture document would be the item that is passed into the Recommendation Track, assuming that each individual issue resolution isn't passed into the Rec track. I think we should try for a version of the arch document every 6 months at the least. This would show progress and allow for timely reviews. Cheers, Dave [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2001Dec/0022.html
Received on Monday, 28 January 2002 12:39:25 UTC