RE: WebArch comment from QA WG

Lofton,

Apologies for the very long delay in responding to your message. Somehow it
slipped through my fingers. The TAG has recently actioned me to pick up the
thread.

It sounds like it would be good to get our WG's together for some
collaborative discussions. If you/QAWG think that this would be worthwhile
from your point-of-view I'd be happy to schedule a joint telcon in one of
the TAGs regular slots (Mondays, 3pm Eastern for 90 mins). Given that the
topic would cover work on extensibility, I'd also anticipate inviting David
Orchard to participate, since he continues to be engaged in that work on the
TAGs behalf.

Once again I apologise for the delay, and look forward to hearing from you.

Best regards

Stuart Williams
Co-Chair W3C TAG.
--

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-webarch-comments-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-webarch-comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of 
> Lofton Henderson
> Sent: 15 March 2004 22:53
> To: public-webarch-comments@w3.org
> Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
> Subject: WebArch comment from QA WG
> 
> 
> Hello TAG,
> 
> At TP2004, one of the presentations referred to some material 
> in WebArch about extensibility [1].  Karl Dubost started a 
> Wiki topic about it [2], because QA also deals with 
> extensibility in the QA Framework (QAF) [3].
> 
> In [1] and [3], TAG and QA might have slightly different 
> concepts behind similar terminology, and/or might be implying 
> slightly different advice.  Even though the QAF is being 
> radically revised and trimmed down, it seems clear now that 
> extensibility is one of the topics that will almost certainly 
> survive in a new, leaner Specification Guidelines.
> 
> At this point, QAWG would like to suggest some liaison or 
> further detailed discussion during the revision of our 
> respective documents, with a view towards making our 
> respective extensibility-related content consistent.  We 
> could participate in a joint teleconference, or QAWG could 
> prepare a detailed look at the respective extensibility bits, or both.
> 
> Please advise, what TAG thinks would be the best next steps.
> 
> Regards,
> -Lofton.
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-webarch-20031209/#ext-version
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2004Mar/0004.html
> [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/guidelines-chapter#Gd-extensions
>

Received on Tuesday, 24 August 2004 15:51:44 UTC