- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2002 08:36:07 -0700
- To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
(I'm forwarding this for Lynne, who is unable to post to WG list from her current location... -LH) >Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2002 14:40:52 -0500 >To: www-qa-wg@w3.org >From: lynne rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov> >Subject: Re: Issue #22 > >QA WG > > >>>It is clear that we are going to have to do significant amounts of issue >>>resolution, or at least preliminary discussion, on our WG email >>>list. There is one issue that I (wearing hat of "'Introduction' >>>editor") would like to have some discussion on: Issue 22 [1], "Should >>>the scope of the Introduction [2] be expanded?" >>> >>>22a.) resolution: yes/no (or some modification of the suggested >>>3-bullet expansion). > >Yes - the Intro needs to be modified. The only suggested bullet I agree >with is to include something regarding the Interdependencies between the >QA Activity and WGs and perhaps the QA Activity and external quality >activities. I don't think this document should describe the QA Activity - >i.e., its scope, deliverables, or even an overview of the Activity. This >Framework document: INTRO should focus on the Framework family of >documents - providing the intro to these documents, overview, scope, >roadmap, rationale for having these documents, etc. In the course of >doing this, it would be necessary to talk somewhat about the QA Activity, >but not have it as a central theme of the Intro. > > >>>22b.) necessary/unnecessary before FPWD. > >Necessary. But, I don't think what needs to be done prior to FPWD is a >major effort - mostly removal of some of >
Received on Sunday, 6 January 2002 10:38:08 UTC