- From: Michael A Squillace <masquill@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 12:49:02 -0500
- To: ERT WG <public-wai-ert@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <OFF6F8E7E3.CF3A2838-ON852575C4.0061437F-862575C4.0061E18F@us.ibm.com>
Group: Please refer to the updated Requirements document: http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/EARL10/WD-EARL10-Requirements-20090526.html All of the issues we have discussed both on the prior teleconferences and in Shadi's note below have, I believe, been addressed and incorporated into this latest update. These primarily include: - rewrite of the status section - removal of most <acronym> elements except as directed in minutes from previous call (this includes the copyright) - added references in text and references appendix and updated TOC incorporated changes discussed for D02, D07, and F04 Please let me know if you have any concerns or comments. --> Mike Squillace IBM Human Ability and Accessibility Center W:512.286.8694 M:512.970.0066 External: http://www.ibm.com/able Internal: http://w3.ibm.com/able Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org> To 05/26/2009 04:42 Michael A PM Squillace/Austin/IBM@IBMUS cc ERT WG <public-wai-ert@w3.org> Subject Re: Updated requirements document Hi Mike, Please find my responses inline: Michael A Squillace wrote: > Group: > Please find the updated Requirements for EARL 1.0 document at: > > http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/EARL10/WD-EARL10-Requirements-20090526 > > Some remaining issues: > > 1. charter/recharter statement (Shadi); one in Abstract, other in > Introduction Yes, will fix these during publication preparation. > 2. in status section, says this is a "first public working draft?" Is this > correct? No. This entire section needs to be reworked for each publication. That paragraph should explain the current status of *this* document, and explain what is expected from the reader. The other paragraphs in this section are all boilerplates. > 3. requirement D02 may not be applicable; reading through QA framework: > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-qaframe-spec-20050428/ > > seems more aplicable to full-blown specifications, detailing requirements > for conformance statements, normative v. non-normative distinctions, etc. > Not sure this is applicable for our requirements document. If not, should > we remove this requirement? Requirement "D02" and all requirements in the requirements document do not apply to the requirements document itself but to EARL 1.0. Since it *is* a full-blown specification on REC-track, it needs this requirement. > 4. still need to add references section Right. But looks good otherwise, thanks for moving it forward. Best, Shadi -- Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/ | WAI International Program Office Activity Lead | W3C Evaluation & Repair Tools Working Group Chair |
Attachments
- image/gif attachment: graycol.gif
- image/gif attachment: pic32372.gif
- image/gif attachment: ecblank.gif
Received on Thursday, 28 May 2009 17:58:13 UTC