- From: Mark Skall <mark.skall@nist.gov>
- Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 10:11:12 -0500
- To: danield@w3.org
- Cc: "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>, www-qa@w3.org
At 08:33 AM 1/8/02 +0100, Daniel Dardailler wrote: > > Coming from a conformance background, I'm still disturbed by providing > > recommendations rather than requirements when the implications of not > > following our processes could have a catastrophic impact on > > interoperability and the quality of implementations. If we believe > what we > > say about the importance of our activity, and we don't require many of the > > things we're asking for, then, by our own admission, we are inviting > disaster. > >I think we should have the same approach as for the WAI guidelines >(Lynne seems to agree with me here): our QA framework specifies >requirements, with various level of importance (MUST, SHOULD, MAY, P1, >P2, A, AA, etc), and someone else decides what to do with them. > >This someone else can be the W3C Advisory Board stating that all WGs >must comply with the QA Framework Spec Guidelines to level AA, or with >the QA Framework Process Guidelines level A. I agree. The WAI guidelines are an excellent model. It seemed to me that, based on our discussions so far, we were going to fall WAI (pardon the pun) short of that. My main point is that we need to document the issue, have a discussion and come to a resolution. I just wanted to make sure that we have a cohesive strategy that is consistent with how we see our documents being used. **************************************************************** 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 Tuesday, 8 January 2002 10:08:13 UTC