- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 12:15:04 -0700
- To: Dominique Hazaël-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
- Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
At 06:18 PM 10/30/03 +0100, Dominique Hazaël-Massieux wrote: >Hi Lofton, Karl, > >Some of our action items are owned by people that are no longer >participating to the QA WG. Can you let me know what should be done with >them, ie finding someone else to do it, or dropping the AI altogether: >* AI-20021028-1: Peter, give Dom the text to be inserted in the >definition section (Was : write up definitions of withdrawn and >deprecated) >[this is probably done, although I don't remember having seen a >defintion for withdrawn] The word is used once in GL4: "Deprecation of a feature may warn implementers that the feature was a bad idea and it may be withdrawn in the future". Does that warrant a definition? >* AI-20021009-03 Kirill, Add quality items to TestGL in the form of >table, similar to OpsGL >[this should probably be dropped, since we dropped the table in Ops] Agree. >* AI-20030218-2 KG, Send to PC a rough estimate of SOAP 1.2 spec + >implementation development cost. Probably ought to void/moot, since Kirill is gone. >* AI-20011112-4 Kirill, Send serialized Infoset pointer Ditto (unless David or someone wants to take it.) >* AI-20030317-4 KG, Post LC comment on SpecGL to add to conformance >disclaimer "if you fail a test"... Ditto (unless someone thinks it ought to be done and wants to take it.) >* AI-20030501-2 JR, to send link to new grant wording. Done. >* AI-20030501-3 JR, to write a sentence on the "use" rights >(details at http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/ActionItems) Done. -Lofton.
Received on Friday, 31 October 2003 14:15:06 UTC