Re: Action Item A-2002-03-1-6

Thanks for this, Peter.  Unless anyone has anything to add or change, I'll 
put this text into the "Description" of the closed Issue47 [1].

Next message in thread from Kirill proposes new wording for Ops Guidelines, 
so please (everyone) have a look at that also.

-Lofton.

[1] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/qawg-issues-html.html

At 02:58 PM 3/26/02 -0800, you wrote:
>Action Item# A-2002-03-1-6:
>
>There was a question put to the WG concerning where to publish Test 
>Materials, in TR space or some where else. The WG had discussed this on 
>the email list and had reached agreement that publishing Test Materials in 
>TR space was not the correct thing to do but this decision was never 
>formalized so that it could be explained/justified to other WG's. Below is 
>a summary of the various reasons put forward by the QA WG members.
>
>1) A number of folks felt that publishing Test Materials to TR space was a 
>bad idea because of the dynamic nature of Test Materials. This dynamic 
>nature takes two main forms. First there may be additional submissions to 
>a test suite after the Rec has been published to TR space. Second there 
>may be errata or a need for new cases that weren't anticipated when the 
>Rec was finalized.
>
>2) Publishing Test Materials in the TR space dilutes the TR space. A 
>related suggestion is to have Test Materials be published to their own web 
>space. A few suggestions were put forward, primarily  WG/QA or WG/Test.
>
>3) Keeping the Test Materials in a WG/Test space keeps the Test Materials 
>under the control of and responsibility of the WG itself.
>
>These seem to be the main threads of the discussion.
>Peter Fawcett
></blockquote></x-html>

Received on Sunday, 31 March 2002 20:07:39 UTC