- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 08:15:19 -0600
- To: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
- Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
At 07:16 PM 9/16/02 -0400, Karl Dubost wrote: >Hi Lofton, > >thanks for the Agenda and the schedule of Publication, > >At 9:07 -0600 2002-09-16, Lofton Henderson wrote: >>3.) OpsET & SpecET -- uncertain, possibly slip a little and publish after >>the GL parts. >> >>"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? > >Do you want a new version of the SpecGL Examples and Techniques before >Tokyo F2F? I can work on that. And I think it could clarify some bits :) That would be useful. We don't yet have a public version, not even at the WG-only level of exposure (i.e., nothing linked from http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/#docs). >I have maybe things to add the agenda of Wednesday. > >- Language and Clarity in our QA Specifications. I will explain wednesday >what I mean, and what we can do about it. A few bits now: > I have asked for a review to someone inside W3C Team of the Spec > Guideline who will be a virgin reader (only a few knowledge of W3C WG > life), I asked for a harsh review. I'll add this to the Wednesday agenda. >- Publication calendar was one of my request to have a table on the QA >Website with the planned dates of publication. We can make an AI to add this to the web site (after we discuss and agree the dates). -Lofton.
Received on Tuesday, 17 September 2002 10:14:21 UTC