- From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 10:27:35 -0400
- To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
Le 14 juil. 2004, à 10:37, Lynne Rosenthal a écrit : > 6 PM 7/13/2004, you wrote: >> comments which will be have to be answered at best, and that will >> still be in the final Recommendation >> document at worse. Catching early the mistakes will decrease the >> number of comments and so time and resources to handle them. > > Not sure what you are trying to get with respect to 'still be in the > final Recommendation' - since as written, it is the comments that > would still be in the final Recommendation. I meant that a mistake (technological, spelling, etc.), which will not have been detected at all and is finally in the text of the final Rec. Until someone one day raises his/her hand in the crowd and says "errr... Excuse me... but here..." > How about this: > 'When a Working Draft is published with incomplete or very raw > sections, the WG might receive a lot of comments which will have to be > answered at best or the incomplete text will go unnoticed and appear > in the final Recommendation at worst.' Good. >> Work Method of RDF/OWL? Jeremy Carrol? >> Templating method and review for SpecGL Lite? > I think we can document our own experience. > Specification Guidelines: A template was produced to guide SpecGL > authors, ensuring that each principle and good practice was written > consistently and addressed the same set of information. Once a > principle or good practice was written, the text was circulated to the > entire WG for comments and at the same time, a specific member of the > WG was assigned to review the text. This ensured that at least > someone in the WG had the reviewing responsibility and it would not > fall through the cracks. > Multiple authors produced the Specification Guidelines, following a > template Very good. Merci Beaucoup -- Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/ W3C Conformance Manager *** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Thursday, 15 July 2004 10:28:48 UTC