- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 10:17:03 +0100
- To: www-qa@w3.org
I see all my earlier comments on the QAF, particularly those in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2004Jan/0002 as adequately formally addressed by Patrick's presentation at the tech plenary. http://www.w3.org/2004/Talks/tp2004-test-pc/ and I do not expect any further formal responses to my comments, or for detailed issue tracking etc, except where it is useful in your judgement. I also withdraw my earlier formal objections, which are similarly adequately addressed. Of course, I am still open to informal discussion, and hope that some of the detailed comments will still be useful to you. I am also open to fomal discussion, if, for example, you wish to have an audit trail motivating changes to your charter. E.g. I would support changes to your charter dropping the AAA conformance commitment, in response to my comment that you did not appear to be meeting this. It is currently unclear to me whether it is useful to give further feedback on the recently published Test WD, which I note includes some responses to issues I have raised. Would it be more sensible to wait for the next round of publications? Further, given that WebOnt is only chartered through to May, and that you appear to have accepted the main comment from WebOnt http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2004Jan/0001 [[[ We [...] believe that the changes needed [...] will be large enough to force another Last Call phase. ]]] you may wish to consider whether to inform WebOnt that that part of the comment has been accepted, but more detailed consideration is unlikely to be complete before WebOnt ceases to exist. Within WebOnt I would then argue for a similar carte blanche in our response to such a message. I also found the other presentations at the tech plenary useful, and I am more aware that my position is at an extreme within the W3C and that a consensus framework may well emphasize the needs of conformance testing and may make some use of RFC 2119 keywords where the interoperability use cases are, for example, examination of CR results and constructions of software which implements a number of W3C recommendations. (However, I doubt that I would ever be convinced that such use cases require MUSTs rather than SHOULDs) Good luck Jeremy
Received on Monday, 8 March 2004 04:18:37 UTC