- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 11:31:58 -0600
- To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
QAWG participants -- There is a new QAWG editors draft at [1], for discussion during the 7/24 telecon. This has not progressed much since the previous (8-july) draft, but the few results of the 10-july telecon and subsequent email have been included. I propose that we should continue the informal approach of looking at "@@" flagged issues in the text. Here are some highlights: [note new Sec 1.3, new description of checkpoint priorities.] Sec 1.6 (was 1.5): extent of inter-dimension discussion? CK1.2: 'normative use case' definition (Issue #72) CK2.3: minimal requirements for each class of product CK3.4: minimal requirements for profiles GL.4: modules/profiles example(s); modules/levels verbiage? CK4.3: verify result, after GL.3,4,7 split. CK4.4: goodness criteria for modules/levels? GL.5: excessive variability caveat? CK6.3: verify separate checkpoint GL.7: minimal requirement language; profiles, modules verbiage? CK7.3, 7.4 (former): rationale for their elimination? GL.8: new ckpt about "explain impl dependent"? CK9.5: checkpoint challenged during project review. CK10.1: distinction from 10.2? CK10.3: is 1st sentence actually 10.4? CK11.1: clarify "levels"; fix example CK13.3: missing reference CK15.1, 15.2: status footnote; needed links. That's all, -Lofton. [1] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2002/07/qaframe-spec-0722.html
Received on Tuesday, 23 July 2002 13:29:07 UTC