Re: FW: WebArch comment from QA WG

Hi Stuart

Your message was received on the www-qa-wg list.  I received it.

-lynne


At 08:50 AM 8/25/2004, Williams, Stuart wrote:

>Can someone confirm that the message belowreached the QAWG. I posted it
>yesterday. It is archived at [1] and elsewhere, however I did not receive a
>copy back from tag@w3.org and am concerned that whilst archived it may not
>have reached the list recipients.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Stuart
>--
>[1] 
><http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2004Aug/0129.html>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2004Aug/0129.html
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Williams, Stuart
>Sent: 24 August 2004 16:51
>To: 'Lofton Henderson'; public-webarch-comments@w3.org
>Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org; 'tag@w3.org'; 'David Orchard'
>Subject: RE: WebArch comment from QA WG
>
>Lofton,
>
>Apologies for the very long delay in responding to your message. Somehow it
>slipped through my fingers. The TAG has recently actioned me to pick up the
>thread.
>
>It sounds like it would be good to get our WG's together for some
>collaborative discussions. If you/QAWG think that this would be worthwhile
>from your point-of-view I'd be happy to schedule a joint telcon in one of
>the TAGs regular slots (Mondays, 3pm Eastern for 90 mins). Given that the
>topic would cover work on extensibility, I'd also anticipate inviting David
>Orchard to participate, since he continues to be engaged in that work on the
>TAGs behalf.
>
>Once again I apologise for the delay, and look forward to hearing from you.
>
>Best regards
>
>Stuart Williams
>Co-Chair W3C TAG.
>--
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-webarch-comments-request@w3.org
> > 
> [<mailto:public-webarch-comments-request@w3.org>mailto:public-webarch-comments-request@w3.org] 
> On Behalf Of Lofton
> > Henderson
> > Sent: 15 March 2004 22:53
> > To: public-webarch-comments@w3.org
> > Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
> > Subject: WebArch comment from QA WG
> >
> >
> > Hello TAG,
> >
> > At TP2004, one of the presentations referred to some material in
> > WebArch about extensibility [1].  Karl Dubost started a Wiki topic
> > about it [2], because QA also deals with extensibility in the QA
> > Framework (QAF) [3].
> >
> > In [1] and [3], TAG and QA might have slightly different concepts
> > behind similar terminology, and/or might be implying slightly
> > different advice.  Even though the QAF is being radically revised and
> > trimmed down, it seems clear now that extensibility is one of the
> > topics that will almost certainly survive in a new, leaner
> > Specification Guidelines.
> >
> > At this point, QAWG would like to suggest some liaison or further
> > detailed discussion during the revision of our respective documents,
> > with a view towards making our respective extensibility-related
> > content consistent.  We could participate in a joint teleconference,
> > or QAWG could prepare a detailed look at the respective extensibility
> > bits, or both.
> >
> > Please advise, what TAG thinks would be the best next steps.
> >
> > Regards,
> > -Lofton.
> >
> > [1] 
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-webarch-20031209/#ext-version>http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-webarch-20031209/#ext-version
> > [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2004Mar/0004.html
> > [3] 
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/guidelines-chapter#Gd-extensions>http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/guidelines-chapter#Gd-extensions
> >
>
>