Re: Exit Criteria (CR/PR) Interoperability report

At 14:56 -0500 2002-02-26, Al Gilman wrote:
>I am just trying to understand where this leaves the QA document.  I think I
>missed a cycle.
>
>Are you, Ian, comfortable with leaving "exit from CR" in the QA document as a
>collloquialism we use to connect with people on their own terms; while the
>document still makes clear that the defining role of the criteria 
>against which one is building a compliance record during CR is that 
>they are the criteria that have been set for entry into PR?

I think the problem with the "exit from CR" is that it could not be 
true. Take the examples of a set of WD documents which has at the 
Last Call stage all what they need to go in PR. So, it's clearly 
something  you need to have to exit a stage, but you need to have to 
enter a new phase.
	Saying I think the use of "Entrance Criteria" is quite clear. But

>I am sorry if I fudged the process in the last paragraph above, but 
>that may be immaterial.  If Karl knows what he needs to do, I think 
>we are done.  Is this true?  Are we done?

I think the good thing will be to use the right terms in the 
specifications we are written, even "exit criteria" is a popular use, 
and explain in the glossary what should we use.

We should in the Framework document, make a link to the words of the 
glossary to define them and it could help the work of Olivier on the 
Glossary, if each time a Working Group is creating a set of 
definitions at the end of the Recommendation (for example - 
http://www.w3.org/TR/ruby/#glossary), it would avoid that and refers 
to the Glossary.

SO in the future, it will diminish the risk of ambiguities.

-- 
Karl Dubost / W3C - Conformance Manager
           http://www.w3.org/QA/

      --- Be Strict To Be Cool! ---

Received on Wednesday, 27 February 2002 02:02:10 UTC