Re: QAH draft for Wednesday

At 11:04 AM 4/13/2004 -0400, Lynne Rosenthal wrote:

>Some comments on the initial sections of the QAH [1]

Thanks for these...

>1.  Question regarding Title.
>I like QA Handbook.  Its not a primer or cookbook.  The Webster's 
>definition is "concise manual or reference book providing specific 
>information or instruction about a subject or place".  Exactly what this is.

I'm fine with Handbook.  If anyone want's it changed, you (whoever) should 
write an email and argue for it.  Then convince majority at telecon.  (Else 
the default is "no change".)

>4. Conformance
>Do we really need this section.  I suggest removing it.  It adds nothing 
>and may set a bad precedent.  Since this is a Handbook, we don't violate 
>our own rule of having a conformance section in every specification.

I was debating this.  On the one hand, we say "Every W3C TR should have a 
Conformance section".  Are we vulnerable to criticism if the QAH does 
not?  (It is a WD for now, destined for WG NOTE eventually -- but it is a 
TR, right?)

Other approach: ...

Get rid of the Conf. section, and roll something into 1st or 2nd subsection 
of Intro, similar to WebArch.



Received on Tuesday, 13 April 2004 12:09:38 UTC