W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa@w3.org > September 2003

Recommendations, and W3C Policy

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 15:03:11 +0200
To: <www-qa@w3.org>

I thought I had already pointed this out, but can't see in the archives.
Apologies if this is duplicate.

Many (all?) of the QA documents intend to constrain other specs, WGs etc

"A new or rechartering Working Group MUST define its QA commitment level in
its Charter; "

Similarly charmod tries to constrain other specs e.g.

"[S] All new W3C specifications MUST:
conform to the conformance criteria applicable to specifications,"

There has been some discussion about Joe Reagle's comment


concerning this phrasing.

A notable part of that discussion is
C. M. Sperberg-McQueen's message


apparantly on behalf of W3M.

It is also informative to look at the relevant part of the subsequent I18N
minutes (seacrh for C035)


I wonder whether the QA specs may need to separate out how other specs or WG
may conform to the QA recommendations from the question of whether or not
such conformance is compulsory.

(Personally I find Sperberg-McQueen's rationale is compelling, and believe
this applies as much to the QA work as to charmod).

I apologise for the rather tangential nature of this message. The discussion
I link to is all member confidential, in fact, at least one of the relevant
e-mails is team confidential (I do not link to it). Not my choice - and I
frankly do not understand why.

While I do not believe it is in order to make a formal comment at the
moment, I will make this comment at the next appropriate opportunity.

Received on Tuesday, 9 September 2003 11:32:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:43:21 UTC