- From: Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2011 09:03:34 +0100
- To: public-colloquial-contrib@w3.org
Many points in this email Marcos. I'll pick one per response if I may. On 17 September 2011 08:43, Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com> wrote: On 'QA'ing > So, this means: > 0. What is QA (to people out there, not us in the WG… in the colloquial sense)? > 1. How many QA VS how many don't? > 3. Of those that do, if statistically significant, what do they QA? and why? > 4. Of those that don't, why not? >> Obviously there may be other forms of >> QA. If it's a company weblog, for example, I may have to keep to >> company guidelines for the content I product. > Sounds good. But again, lets think about the first problem we want to tackle. There are a lot of great things for us to look at… and I'm really excited about building tools that will enable this to happen. With such a variable definition of QA perhaps this is a constrained starting point? Perhaps we could kick that around some more and see if the interest holds up? QA != validation (in the SGML sense at least). regards -- Dave Pawson XSLT XSL-FO FAQ. Docbook FAQ. http://www.dpawson.co.uk
Received on Saturday, 17 September 2011 08:04:11 UTC