- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 10:41:16 -0700
- To: Dominique Hazaël-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
- Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
Good minutes. Just one substantive point, about your question at the end: At 06:24 PM 1/29/02 +0100, you wrote: >[...] >Issue #48: Should the planned Technical Guidelines be a >guideline-checkpoint part of the Framework doc family? >There is a naming pb with the potential 4th document of the Framework >(Technical GL and Technical techniques). LH proposes "Test material GL" >instead. The second part of the issue is to know if such a document >would have its place in the framework family. > >DECISION: [@@@ Fixme] Here is my remembrance. To the discussion, add: Editors (dd, KG, LH) believe that there will be conformance requirements (checkpoints) on test materials, as well as examples and techniques (tools and resources). So the Gd/Ck would go into "Test Materials Guidelines", and the ex&tech would go into "Test Materials Examples and Techniques". DD questioned the relationship between the last part and the section in the Frm:Intro document, "Technical assets". DECISION: Keep the 4th document (two parts) in the Framework, rename "Technical" to "Test Materials", and add a comment to the Frm:Intro "Technical Assets" section, pointing out the connection between the stuff in the section and the "Test Materials Examples and Techniques". -Lofton.
Received on Thursday, 31 January 2002 12:40:36 UTC