- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 15:17:34 -0600
- To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
QAWG -- other opinions solicited... I initially agreed with Dave's suggestion, but have re-thought it. I'm concerned that we not tie the (probably unreviewed) table to a WD which does now have QAWG consensus for publication. I said "unreviewed", because there were no replies to Dom's original circulation -- unless everyone agreed 100%! For this reason, I'm a bit nervous that we link it from the published WD, despite Dom's disclaimer at the start. Options: 0.) As Dave suggested. 1.) SpecExtech: put it there, and put a note in SpecGL with a forward reference to (future) Extech . 2.) Dom submit it to IG list for discussion after SpecGL publication (it would be a good conversation starter!). 3.) SpecGL: put a note in GL2, noting the existence of an an individual contribution/exercise, pointing to Dom's archived email message (which links to the table); maybe also strengthen disclaimer at start of Dom's document. 4.) 1+2 5.) 2+3 At 01:04 PM 8/21/02 -0400, David Marston/Cambridge/IBM wrote: >[...] > >Here is an attempt of creating such a table: > >http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/08/rec_categories > >How about putting an editorial note under Guideline 2 for this edition >of SpecGL? It would not imply a commitment to maintain such a table or >to point to it from later drafts of SpecGL. >.................David Marston
Received on Wednesday, 21 August 2002 17:17:13 UTC