Re: Heads up: please review these documents by end of Wednesday

Do we want to (or should we) say anywhere that the alternate "version" should 
have the same functionality or purpose as the original "version" (re: use of 
the word "version")?  The reason I'm asking is that in some W3C Quality 
Assurance documents (for example, [1]) a "new version" means "a significant 
change or enhancement in functionality"?   Even though this reference is to 
a "new version of a specification", there may be some confusion with use of the 
word "version" in multiple contexts within W3C?  

Tim Boland NIST

[1]: http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/qaframe-primer

Quoting Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>:

> There are two documents that we would like the working group to review
> before they are publicly released this week:
> 
> 1) The discussion page for the alternate versions editorial note, available
> at http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2007/05/alternate-versions.html
> 2) A relatively long document that describes the changes that have been made
> since the Last Call draft, and the rationale for those changes (as well as
> for the ones we didn't make) We'll send the link to this document as soon as
> it is ready.
> 
> We'd like to ask you to look at these as soon as you can, so that you can
> alert us if there are problems that need to be addressed. We would need
> feedback no later than the end of the day tomorrow.
> 
> The second document is a collection of information that is scattered among
> the various responses, organized into a coherent stand-alone document. Since
> the working group is getting its first look at this document so late, we can
> delay publishing it for a few days, if need be.
> 
> Gregg and Loretta
>

Received on Wednesday, 16 May 2007 12:39:26 UTC