- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 12:47:37 -0600
- To: andrew@opengroup.org
- Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
Andrew, I have a couple of small comments. If you get none others by CoB today (in North America), I suggest that you make these final -- one week has elapsed since the meeting, and CoB today will mark 3 full days for review. At 11:39 AM 10/21/02 +0100, you wrote: >[...] >Summary of New Action Items: > >A-2002-10-16-1: LH to start email discussion about possible presentation >material for outreach to other groups. Please insert after "about": "tech plenary and" See below for AI-2002-10-16-2. >Agenda: >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2002Oct/0054.html > >Previous Telcon Minutes: >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2002Oct/0074.html Since f2f immediately preceded this telecon, I suggest to link to it also: Preceding F2F Minutes: http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/10/f2f-minutes >[...] >LH: This affects whether one can have test cases or not. Groups maintain >errata lists - they don't become normative until new doc is >published. Tying test to errata levels needs to be looked at more >carefully since we are going be tying them to errata levels. > Also seems to downplay the barrier to republishing a TR (every > 3/6 months?). The review processes are fairly light. Editors with > heavy workloads are not going to view this as a small activity - to > republish. The errata doc considers carefully implications of > what should be normative. It gets into the question of what is > normative/what not - how you package things, where they reside - this > can be a major determinant of if whether something is normative or not. > @@@ Lofton Please check this - I may have mangled it slightly in > the write-up At the end, I may have been referring to the fact that it has to be in /TR/ in order to be normative, and republication w/ merged approved errata is a way to do that. So might be clearer to replace: "It gets into the question of what is normative/what not - how you package things, where they reside - this can be a major determinant of if whether something is normative or not." with "It points out that errata, like anything else, must be in /TR/ to be normative. And from that, recommends republication of the whole spec, with approved errata folded in, as the way to finally make them normative." >[...] >LH: I called it a definition section so would it challenge QA glossary >(@@@ May have got this wrong). "...so it would *not* be confused with or challenge the QA Glossary." >[...] > >KG: I prefer per-document definitions. LH: Can we take discussion on to >the IG list? > MS: On IG list - let's not use Test Assertion as the working example- > too controversial. We need another example. I think that I got an AI here: AI-2002-10-16-2: LH to start discussion on IG list of last bit of Issue 19, per-document definitions (supplemental to and starting from QA Glossary definition.) (Due date for AI list: I would like to be after publication -- 2002-10-13?. We (all) have enough to do before.) -Lofton.
Received on Wednesday, 23 October 2002 14:47:32 UTC