- From: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
- Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 08:02:28 -0500
- To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>, www-qa-wg@w3.org
I would agree with Or do you agree that I can make this change -- combine 5.5 into 5.4 as another MUST requirement?) Regards, Lynne At 01:02 PM 10/30/2002, Lofton Henderson wrote: >QAWG, > >In the process of working on OpsGL for publication, I came upon an oddity >in Checkpoint 5.4 [1] and 5.5 [2]. CK5.4 is priority 2, and requires >"Define review procedures...". CK5.5 is priority 1, and specifies minimal >required content for the reviews-procedure definition that is specified in >CK5.4. > >Aside from the oddity of the priorities, it seems to me that 5.5 ought to >be a second MUST requirement for 5.4, not a separate checkpoint. > >Does anyone disagree with this, i.e., should we make this an issue and >discuss it? (Or do you agree that I can make this change -- combine 5.5 >into 5.4 as another MUST requirement?) > >Regards, >Lofton. > >[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-qaframe-ops-20020515/#Ck-proc-define-licenses >[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-qaframe-ops-20020515/#Ck-review-criteria
Received on Thursday, 31 October 2002 08:09:09 UTC