RE: Conformance Section in 2002

Agree. When we are involved, it gets better. For example, I think our
participation in LC review for SOAP1.2 was quite productive [1].

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlp-comments/2002Nov/0018.html


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 29, 2002 11:19 AM
> To: Karl Dubost; www-qa-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Conformance Section in 2002
> 
> 
> Although there are parts of SpecGL that we are still tuning, presence
of a
> conformance section is pretty basic.
> 
> We are asked to participate in every PR telecon, but by then it is too
> late.  LC is the time to catch such major omissions, but QA is not
asked
> to
> participate in many LC reviews.
> 
> Mandatory conformance to SpecGL would solve the problem.  So would
> pro-active LC review, but we don't have a lot of resources to do a
> thorough
> review of all LC documents.
> 
> -Lofton.
> 
> At 04:33 PM 11/27/02 -0500, Karl Dubost wrote:
> 
> >On the 4 Recommendations published so far in 2002,
> >
> >No one has a conformance section :(
> >
> >
> >XML-Signature XPath Filter 2.0
> >     8 November 2002, John Boyer, Merlin Hughes, Joseph Reagle
> >Exclusive XML Canonicalization Version 1.0
> >     18 July 2002, John Boyer, Donald E. Eastlake 3rd, Joseph Reagle
> >The Platform for Privacy Preferences 1.0 (P3P1.0) Specification
> >     16 April 2002, Massimo Marchiori
> >XML-Signature Syntax and Processing
> >     12 February 2002, Donald Eastlake, Joseph Reagle, David Solo
> >
> >
> >--
> >Karl Dubost / W3C - Conformance Manager
> >           http://www.w3.org/QA/
> >
> >      --- Be Strict To Be Cool! ---
> >

Received on Monday, 2 December 2002 03:40:03 UTC