Re: Issue #22

Lofton began by writing:
>I would like to propose that the answer to 22b is "unnecessary before
>FPWD". The 2nd proposed bullet in particular is a substantial issue,
>and cannot be answered in less that a few months I would think.

Item 22b addresses both other W3C bodies and "other organisations".

My comments were directed at the "other organisations" part.

Issue 12 (raised by me) is W3C-internal; the question is about QAWG
interacting with WAI and I18N. In my mind, the question is also whether
the W3C as a whole begins to think of "horizontal groups" as a genre
before they really should.

Some issues (10, 36) are dependent on resolution of the horizontality
(philosophical) question. More concretely, should QAWG engage in reviews
and other activities that are characteristic of a horizontal WG?

Issue 25 mentions "other horizontal WGs" generically. Perhaps WAI and
I18N could be removed from this issue. In fact, this one could be about
W3C Teams, notably Comm, and the question of how to relate to TAG should
be spun off as a distinct issue.

Issue 37 is the most generic regarding relationships to external bodies.
Issues 31, 38, and possibly 35 are about specific aspects of the
external relationships. I think #37 is adequately broad for now. Upon
closer scrutiny, it will spawn more specific issues.

Lofton asked me:
>Is there some specific aspect which we
>in QA should be debating, in your view?

I think all of us recognize the benefits of an "arm's-length review" of
either specifications or an implementation. Many other QA people would
reasonably ask the W3C for proof that it (W3C as a whole) respects the
value of such reviews. Right now, the Framework document should avoid
creating the impression that the QA Activity intends to devalue these
external reviews and test suites. I think that the platitudes of 1.2
are appropriately inspiring, and part of the way the QA Activity brings
about achievement of the goals is by acknowledging that external groups
may be involved. After reading all of Part 1 of the Framework document,
the reader should not come away thinking that QA intends to simply add
to the burdens of the substantive/vertical WGs. Thus, Part 1 is the
place to mention the potential to involve external groups.
.................David Marston

Received on Monday, 7 January 2002 13:01:27 UTC