Re: new draft "Framework: Process & Operational Guidelines"

As lead editor for this part, Kirill will be the one to respond to most 
points.  I see that there are a couple with potential issues -- ckpt 
priorities, commitment table, etc -- that should be raised for telcon 
discussion, if anyone disagrees with the suggestions.

I have just a couple of replies, about editorial bits that I was involved 
with...

At 03:42 PM 1/25/2002 +0100, you wrote:
[...]
> >    All review comments against the previous version
> >    have been accepted and implemented, except as indicated in an
> >    associated [19]disposition of comments document. This version still
>
>The disposition of comments actually lists a bunch of "taken"
>comments, so it's unclear if it is not up-to-date or if the
>description here is wrong.

The latter.  I wrote the Status and posted the document first, before 
D.o.C. was written.  I think this reference should go away in FPWD, in any 
case.

>[...]
> >   1.3 Terminology
> >
> >    The keywords "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
> >    "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" will be
> >    used as defined in RFC 2119 [39][RFC2119].
>
>Since the checkpoints define the requirement/normativeness level, and
>they use priority instead of verbiage, one may wonder why we say we're
>going to use the RFC2119 model. The WAI guidelines do not refer to it
>I think.

I think one of them actually does (in briefer form), but I can't remember 
which one (and don't have Web access now).  I'd propose that we revisit 
this in a later draft, whether the rfc2119 reference can be eliminated 
completely.


>[...]
>broken link
>(should run ,checklink on all documents, Dom will not publish
>otherwise)
>

This is planned.

-Lofton.

Received on Sunday, 27 January 2002 22:01:59 UTC