- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 11:27:29 +0100
- To: www-qa@w3.org
Karl: > I'm not sure [that] [y]ou understand. Neither am I (sure that I understand). Clearly the force of my objection is reduced, possibly enough for me to remove it, if, as you prepare the test document for Last Call, you give adequate consideration to my comments on it, including comments that have wider scope than just the test document. The section of the process document that I felt suggested I should object now rather than later was: http://www.w3.org/2003/06/Process-20030618/tr.html#doc-reviews 7.3 Reviews and Review Responsibilities [[ Reviewers SHOULD NOT expect that a Working Group will readily make substantive changes to a mature document. ]] My initial comments on the test document, which was a "document is still in its infancy" [1]. Hence I feel in order expecting that the WG will readily make substantive changes to the QAF, including the ops and spec guidelines, in as much as my comments on the test guidelines suggest such changes. To nail down one part of the process document which you seem to me to be abusing I would go for: 7.4.3 Call for Implementations [[ Purpose: At this step, W3C believes the technical report is stable and appropriate for implementation. ]] this belief concerning the Ops and Spec GL seems somewhat shaky when you had open issues on the test guidelines. The failure to list those open issues on your issue list, have made it more difficult for the various reviewers of your request to advance to fairly evaluate whether that request was in order or not. Jeremy [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2003Jul/0020
Received on Monday, 19 January 2004 05:48:43 UTC