W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > January 2002

Re: New Discussion Drafts & telcon

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 11:46:43 -0700
Message-Id: <>
To: Olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org

At 12:25 PM 1/3/02 +0900, Olivier Thereaux wrote:
>here is a quick review of the QAframework documents. Unfortunately, I'm
>more or less offline these days, so this is a (focused) comment on the
>2dec/5dec version of part 1 and 2, and I didn't even have time for a
>deep review...

Thanks for the review that you have done.  Most of your comments are still 
pertinent to the new drafts, though some have been made moot by the 
additional writing.  I'll respond in detail later.

>-header : "working draft" or "draft note" ?

This was an issue (#18) and unless anyone objects, we can close it per 
Daniel's suggestion (WD).

>-status: QAA for QA Activity is quite new to me. I always saw QA for the

I'll get rid of it.  If there is any possibility of confusion in context, 
when we are talking about the Activity, (capital "A"), then QA Activity can 
be used.

>whole document : a lot of acronyms and abbreviations, I know it can be
>painful, but i'd recommend the use of the appropriate markup for those.
>On a personal level, I hate it when I hear about, say "MoUs" or "RAND",
>ans learn what tat thing is a week later. On a QA level, since one of
>the goals of the activity is to improve our specifications, there are
>good writing practices we should encourage, and, of course, enforce in
>our own work. Hence simplicity, clarity, and rich markup.

Completely agree.  I have considered that this (acronym markup) is 
something that we editors must do before going public.  Also it is part of 
WCAG compliance.  I don't remember what level.  (Question.  Do we aim for 
level "A", or higher?)

Received on Thursday, 3 January 2002 13:44:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:43:29 UTC