LC-1/55 clarification [was Re: [Draft] Minutes from QA WG Teleconf 2003/03/31]

I have a question about the resolution of LC-1...

At 09:41 PM 4/2/03 -0800, Kirill Gavrylyuk wrote:
>DH: LC1,55. Should we talk about security, accessibility. Suggested that 
>these considerations are out of scope of QA Framework and SpecGL specifically.
>LR: Suggest to list them in the document but mention that they are out of 
>MS: Why not just not addressing them at all.
>KG: I think these both are covered already by saying authors should avoid 
>undefined functionality.
>LH: I don't think we are covering it - that would be a stretch. But I 
>think it is out of scope.
>KD: I think it is out of scope of these guidelines.
>PC, All seconded: We should also write a sentence narrowing the scope of 
>the document.
>DH: Could Patrick word the sentence? We should try to see who could 
>address the rule to have security and accessibility in W3C specs.
>LH: Should we enumerate things that are out of scope?
>PC: I think that would lead us on that slippery slope.
>MS: I agree. We should just have a general sentence specifying what is out 
>of scope, but not enumerating them.
>Action Item: Patrick to write in-scope/out of scope statement. ETA - next 
>DH: Agreed on resolution for LC1 and 55.
>DH: Next LC14. [...]

Didn't we also agree that the topic of LC-1 has merit, and we would refer 
to someone else like Comm or TAG (probably not) or ...?

Who are we going to refer it to, and who has the action to do it?


Received on Tuesday, 8 April 2003 17:47:32 UTC