- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 16:33:49 -0700
- To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
- Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20021206171012.03f83e10@rockynet.com>
QAWG, Here is an OpsGL left-over from 25-nov -- an issue with CP6.1 [1] and a proposed solution. Please read. If you don't like the proposal, then reply and we will discuss it on telecon agenda. From the 25-nov OpsGL issues message [2]: CP6.1: The last sentence doesn't belong -- the first part is about maintenance of the Rec and of the TS, not repository. The last part is about persistent repository. Quote: "If the Working Group ceases to operate, then successors responsible for ongoing interpretation and maintenance (errata) of the standard should be designated to ensure continued availability of the test suite." Proposal: reword the sentence to pertain to repository, and tie it into the "Discussion" so as to indicate that this is one aspect of the MUST requirements for "secure and reliable repository". Also, put something similar to original wording at the appropriate place in CP8.1 -- indicating that TM maintenance (and by implication, Rec maintenance) must continue through the Rec's life-cycle even if the WG dissolves. -Lofton. [1] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2002/11/qaframe-ops-20021111#Ck-secure-repository [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2002Nov/0082.html
Received on Tuesday, 10 December 2002 18:32:49 UTC