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

Re: Fwd: Re: Issue #22

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 16:01:15 -0700
Message-Id: <>
To: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org, ij@w3.org
At 07:29 AM 1/7/02 -0500, Lynne Rosenthal wrote:

>I think that the Framework INTRO should be an intro to the Framework 
>family of documents not to the QA Activity.

I think we have agreement here, now.

>We don't need to justify or defend the Activity, that has already been 
>done (resulting in the Activity) and that is what Chapt 2 sounds like to me.

It was intended to point to each of the major QA resources, and give a 
brief explanation of what it is about.  For example, the taxonomy sits on 
the web site, and is linked from the QA home page (and other places), but 
there is no explanation anywhere of what it is.  If Ch.2 comes across as 
"defend and justify the Activity", then it probably needs re-writing before 
putting it on the Web site (if everyone agrees with Ian's suggestion.)

>I think that in writing the Intro, the mention of some of the Activities 
>goals, actions, resources, etc.  will need to be included.  In particular 
>Section 2.10 Technical Assets - should be included but perhaps at the end 
>of Chapt 3.  I think it important to let people know that not only are we 
>suggesting that they include the quality practices stated in the Framework 
>documents, but the Activity will be providing some tools, templates, etc 
>to help accomplish what we recommend.

As agreed, I will cut Ch.2 before FPWD.  But I think it is a mistake to add 
anything significant, until we have consensus what should be added.  There 
have been a number of suggestions, going in several different directions, 
starting with the issue #22 source.

Therefore, for additions to Intro, someone should circulate:

1. either a proposed table of contents (outline) for new stuff;
2. or proposed new text.

Then we can discuss and agree, before writing (which probably means: new 
stuff after FPWD, or else delay FPWD).

Sound acceptable?

Received on Monday, 7 January 2002 18:01:12 UTC

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