mis-classified LC issues?

Ref:  http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/lc-issues

Please reply asap if you disagree with any of these changes (or even if you 
agree)...

LC-56:
-----

I think this is not a SpecGL issue.  To me it looks like a TestGL issue, 
although originator implies that it ought to be OpsGL.  I disagree with 
that -- if TestGL makes policy about accessibility of test materials, then 
it is naturally part of the QA Moderator's job to monitor that, and we 
don't need to appoint a special person.  But we can argue that later.

I suggest:  for now, reclassify as OpsGL.

LC-83:
-----

In SpecGL context, it is hard to understand where the "seven" comes 
from.  I think he's referring to the OpsGL table in CP1.1.

Alternatives:

1.) Keep as SpecGL issue
2.) Convert to OpsGL issue
3.) Both -- raise it for SpecGL and for OpsGL

I suggest:  #2 (others have already queued OpsGL issues about the table in 
CP1.1).

LC-107
-----

This confirms that "seven" comes from GL1 of OpsGL.  One could consider 
this also to be an OpsGL issue.  But...

I suggest:  leave it as SpecGL, with cross-reference to reclassified LC-83, 
plus LC-3, 60, 72.  Then we (QAWG) can argue and positively affirm that we 
wish to keep the A, AA, AAA conformance levels.  (Note.  This has actually 
been done several times in the past, and there is no new information other 
than the conflict with the seven-level stuff in OpsGL, which to me does not 
argue for changing the A[A[A]] scheme.)

Regards,
-Lofton.

Received on Thursday, 3 April 2003 16:27:13 UTC