- From: Mark Skall <mark.skall@nist.gov>
- Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 13:36:32 -0500
- To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
> >There is no time for SpecGL issues resolution on the f2f agenda. (And I >wasn't anticipating that time would be spent on detailed SpecGL >issues.) Recent time on SpecGL was about the TA stuff, which has been in >the queue since before CR publication (because SpecGL fails to comply with >itself, for which we have gotten roasted by others). > >Unless I'm forgetting something, we haven't spent any time recently >processing SpecGL comments or issues, have we? I wasn't talking about time spent on SpecGL at the upcoming meeting or even recently. My only point is that SpecGL was thought out and very well discussed at its comparable point in the life cycle to TestGL. As an example, we spent more time on one aspect of SpecGL (endless DOV discussions) than on all of TestGL. In order to have a comprehensive, well-thought out document we need to vet as many issues as possible for TestGL. I'm not arguing with the need to determine QAF Future and the big issues. That clearly needs to be done, and very soon. I'd like to see, however, testGL move up in the pecking order after that - if not at the f2f, then I think we should spend more time at telcons discussing TestGL. My 2 cents. -M **************************************************************** 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 Friday, 27 February 2004 13:36:55 UTC