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

Re: Issue #22

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 11:49:02 -0700
Message-Id: <>
To: david_marston@us.ibm.com
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org

Thanks for your careful look at the tangle of inter-related issues around 
"horizontal WGs" and external organizations.  I'll spend a little time and 
try to clean up and orthogonalize them, per your suggestions.

Without jumping to any conclusions about resolutions of the questions on 
Comm, TAG, WAI, and I18N, it seems that:

** we should plan a joint meeting at Cannes (at least of reps of each of 
the teams/WGs), as it would be a great chance to sort through a complex issue;

** and it might be productive to continue our own discussions around the 
issues, including (if possible) some strawman proposals for how the 
relationships might be structured.

Daniel, are there any plans for addressing this at Cannes (i.e., outside of 
Plenary, in break-out)?

A couple of comments and questions, in-line...

At 12:58 PM 1/7/02 -0500, you wrote:
>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.

Rationale for the latter?  (E.g., so as not to preclude other 
organizational solutions?)

>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.

You make good points here, but I'm not quite sure where to take 
them.  Would you be interested to suggest some specific changes or 
additional language for Part 1?  (For that matter, if you're interested, 
you could split out the external entity issue(s) and use such suggested 
changes as Proposal for resolution.)


Received on Wednesday, 9 January 2002 13:49:02 UTC

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