- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 09:01:27 -0600
- To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
QAWG participants -- Here are the leftovers from yesterday's telecon agenda. If any of these look like big or debatable issues, let's enter them as issues and debate them later (on the IG list). For now, I'm look for (temporary, at least) closure so that we can publish. ------------------rules for profiles--------------------- -- rules for profiles as a CoP (Class of Product): GL2, CK2.3, CK3.6 (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2002Aug/0032.html) (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2002Aug/0020.html) Proposal. Only clean up a little wording problem in CK3.6. (See next message.) Okay? (after you see next message) ------------------end--------------------- ------------------discretionary items--------------------- -- GL8 discretionary * new bullet list (choice, options, impl-dep) * new implementation-dependent checkpoint? (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2002Aug/0006.html) This was mostly for review of 3-way bullet list of types of discretionary items. But there is an open question about whether there ought to be a new checkpoint: if implementation dependent features/values are allowed by the specification, then there must be a statement about expected interoperability effects. I liked the idea, David thought it was not necessary. Other opinions? (See end of GL8 verbiage.) -----------------end---------------------- ------------------register extensions--------------------- -- CK9.5, register extensions * (criticized in QAWG project review) ------------------end--------------------- -Lofton. P.S. And there is this... Postponed ===== Dom will draft text, which will be integrated into 8/29 editor draft... -- Dominique's "specification" vs. "technology" issue (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2002Aug/0017.html) (see "@@spec-tech" in editor draft)
Received on Thursday, 15 August 2002 11:01:17 UTC