- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 09:16:04 -0700
- To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
QAWG -- We were unable to coordinate and submit a consensus QAWG position on the new Errata Proposal. However three of us submitted individual comments. Comments from David, Lofton, Kirill respectively can be found at: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/process-issues/2002Oct/0003.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/process-issues/2002Oct/0004.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/process-issues/2002Oct/0005.html As mentioned in below-attached earlier message, the comments were too late to influence the draft of the errata bits of the new Last Call draft of the Process Document. I am going to submit comments as an individual. If anyone feels strongly that QAWG should take a position (last time, few cared about the subject), speak up. IMO, there should be a lightweight, but *normative*, errata process. I.e., the only way that errata can be normative now (as currently proposed) is to fold them into the Technical Report and republish the whole thing. I think there could be an optional lightweight process: 1.) review/approval as now proposed -- 3 week last call on WG-approved errata, w/ resolution of any objections; 2.) publish W3C-approved errata in /TR/, with "Latest Version", "This Version", "Previous Version" sort of control; 3.) add to SoTD a link to "Normative Errata", along with the current required link to the WG's errata list (which is either unapproved or WG-approved, but not W3C approved). (Any thoughts or comments on this?) -Lofton. >Resent-Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:40:28 -0400 (EDT) >X-Sender: lofton@rockynet.com (Unverified) >X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 >Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 09:40:30 -0600 >To: www-qa-wg@w3.org >From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com> >Subject: Fwd: [Last call] 24 Oct 2002 Process Document (until 28 November) >Resent-From: www-qa-wg@w3.org >X-Mailing-List: <www-qa-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/1059 >X-Loop: www-qa-wg@w3.org >Sender: www-qa-wg-request@w3.org >Resent-Sender: www-qa-wg-request@w3.org >List-Id: <www-qa-wg.w3.org> >List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/> >List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:www-qa-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe> >X-RCPT-TO: <lofton@rockynet.com> > > >See request for "Last Call" comments on new Process Document: > >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2002OctDec/0087.html > >Included here is a reference to a new Errata Proposal (dated last Friday, >18 October): > >http://www.w3.org/2002/10/18-errata > >This is a concise summary, derived from the earlier (19 September) >proposal. It is under review and open to comment, as part of the Process >Document review. (Note. A few individual comments from some of us QA >WG/IG people were too late to influence this new version.) > >-Lofton.
Received on Friday, 8 November 2002 11:15:39 UTC