- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 11:07:02 -0700
- To: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
- Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
Thanks for the feedback... At 07:22 AM 1/22/03 -0500, Lynne Rosenthal wrote: >I think the rationale is desirable and should be included to tell the >reader why we have the checkpoint. However, there are some checkpoints >for which the reason they are there is obvious and a rationale added >nothing (no new information). In these cases, I rather not have the rationale. All -- I would be happy to entertain specific suggestions. I have received a couple already: remove 4.4 Rationale; 3.1 Rationale doesn't add much to what Discussion already says. Other suggestion are welcome. (e.g., Remove CPx.y Rationale; or definitely add one to CPz.w). -Lofton. >At 02:47 PM 1/21/2003, Lofton Henderson wrote: > >>QAWG participants -- >> >>We can handle this by email, rather than taking meeting time. But I'd >>appreciate your feedback sooner, rather than later, if you are willing to >>comment. >> >>At [1] is an editor-draft of OpsGL. It contains all of the substantive >>issue resolutions (see the Change History), for example the new >>commitment table. I'm in progress with the resolution to add "Rationale" >>to the checkpoints. It is slower going than I expected. I have done GL2 >>through part of GL5, and a couple bits of GL6. >> >>Question: Do we need a rationale for every checkpoint? >> >> a.) Yes (before LC)? >> b.) Desirable but not necessary (before LC)? >> c.) No, not even desirable? >> >>If your answer is #b or #c, perhaps you would be willing to provide a >>little more input -- which CPs ought to have Rationale, that currently do >>not? (If your answer was #c, which CPs ought NOT to have a rationale?) >> >>Any other comments are welcome, also (implementation of any issues, >>wording of any Rationale, etc). >> >>Thanks, >>-Lofton. >> >> >>[1] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2003/01/qaframe-ops-20030120.html >
Received on Wednesday, 22 January 2003 13:04:47 UTC