- From: Kirill Gavrylyuk <kirillg@microsoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 00:39:20 -0800
- To: "Lofton Henderson" <lofton@rockynet.com>, "Karl Dubost" <karl@w3.org>, <www-qa-wg@w3.org>
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