- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 14:43:51 -0600
- To: "Kirill Gavrylyuk" <kirillg@microsoft.com>
- Cc: <www-qa-wg@w3.org>
Kirill, Thanks for filling in the details on the TestGL plans. An apparent typo below... At 10:12 AM 9/16/02 -0700, Kirill Gavrylyuk wrote: >Minor correction/update for the TestGL/TestET plans: > >- 15-20th of November( 2-3 weeks after OpsGL/SpecGL): >TestGL will go FPWD. Will NOT publish TestET separately at that time, >but TestGL will have some Examples/Techniques embedded. > >- 15/20th of January (2-3 weeks after OpsGL/SpecGL go Last Call) >TestGL/TestET will go to 2nd WD (not the Last Call yet). Should be "February", not "January" (since we want to go to Last Call at the *end* of January on the other parts). -Lofton. >Thanks > >-----Original Message----- >From: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com] >Sent: Monday, September 16, 2002 8:07 AM >To: www-qa-wg@w3.org >Subject: for Wednesday agenda > > >QAWG participants, > >A more detailed agenda will follow by the end of today, but I want to >send >this topic so that you will have more time to check out the references. > >Before I went on vacation, the lead editors of the Framework documents >had >a teleconference. Here are our preliminary conclusions about the >Framework >publication schedule. The existing proposed schedule was: all 7 parts >to >Last Call at end of January, and next publication of all 7 parts in /TR/ >by >1 November. > >With our current resources, we don't think this is achievable. Here are > >our current thoughts for a modified schedule: > >1.) possibly slip the TestGL and TestET (examples & techniques) parts >behind the others by 2-3 weeks. > >2.) publish Intro, OpsGL, SpecGL per original schedule (1 November and >end >January) > >3.) OpsET & SpecET -- uncertain, possibly slip a little and publish >after >the GL parts. > >#3 is "uncertain", because there are still some uncertainties about how >the >ET parts relate to the GL parts, and there is an open issue (issue 68, >[0]) >about the ultimate status of these parts -- >Recommendation? Note? Other? Issue #68 refers to issue #67, which >deals >with the scope of the parts -- examples, or techniques, or both? While >issue #67 is "Closed", it alludes to some additional issues about how >the >GL-ET parts relate to each other, which issues have not yet been >enumerated >as separate issues. To quote: > >"Techniques will raise a number of additional issues: must (can) the >enumeration be exhaustive? how precise (i.e., verifiable) can these be >in >diverse operational, specification, and test environments?" > >Lurking here also is the question (issue): What role, if any, do the >techniques in the ET parts play in the determination of conformance to >the >specific requirements of the GL parts? > >Although we need not necessarily be constrained by WAI's GL-ET work, on >the >other hand it provides a body of existing practice (the only such body?) > >that we can look at. Before the telecon, please have a look at one or >more >of the GL/ET pairs, [1]..[6]. > >-Lofton. > >[0] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/qawg-issues-html#x68 > >[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WAI-WEBCONTENT-19990505/ >[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-HTML-TECHS/ > >[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG10/ >[4] http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG10-TECHS/ > >[5] http://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG10/ >[6] http://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG10-TECHS/
Received on Monday, 16 September 2002 16:42:52 UTC