- From: Mark Skall <mark.skall@nist.gov>
- Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 16:44:55 -0400
- To: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>, www-qa-wg@w3.org
At 09:17 AM 9/17/2003 -0400, Karl Dubost wrote: >Hi, > >A comment has been made by the OWL WG, which raises a fair enough point. >If they try to implement the QA Ops GL, they may have to modify their >charter to comply with the checkpoints: > CP 1.1 Where it's explained in the Examples and Techniques. Amend > a charter for an existing WG. > CP 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 too. > >- What's happening if they modify their charter to try the QA Framework >Ops GL and notice later on, that the CP has disappeared. >- What's happening if they notice that they will engage themselves in a >process they don't want now. >- Is there room for a thought experience during our CR phase. So WG trying >to do like if they were making it real, but not really. For example write >a mockup charter, like if they had to comply and report what are the problems. I agree with this suggestion. It would be a terrible burden to really make significant changes that could later be obviated by changes to our drafts. I wholeheartedly endorse the idea of WGs providing a mockup to meet our requirements, without making actual changes. Mark >Suggestions? > >-- >Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/ >W3C Conformance Manager >*** Be Strict To Be Cool *** > > **************************************************************** Mark Skall Chief, Software Diagnostics and Conformance Testing Division Information Technology Laboratory National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8970 Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8970 Voice: 301-975-3262 Fax: 301-590-9174 Email: skall@nist.gov ****************************************************************
Received on Wednesday, 17 September 2003 16:45:17 UTC