- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 18:24:23 +0200
- To: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
- Cc: www-qa@w3.org
On Tuesday, May 3, 2005, 5:11:20 PM, Karl wrote: KD> Dear Chris, KD> Thanks for your comments on the Last Call version of the QA Framework: KD> Specification Guidelines[0] - 22 November 2004 KD> After two weeks from now (on May 18, 2005), the lack of answer will KD> be considered as if you had accepted the comment. KD> Original comment (issue 1154): KD> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005Mar/0010.html KD> The QA Working Group agrees the former text was narrowing the scope of KD> the good practice without good reason and made the new text broader, KD> while illustrating it with the former text. Good practice 23 now reads: KD> Define an error handling mechanism. KD> What does it mean? KD> For each class of product affected by an error condition, address KD> error handling. For instance: for a language, address what effect KD> an error (be it syntactic or semantic) in the input has to a KD> processor of this language; for a protocol, address how a party to KD> this protocol should behave when a bogus message is received; for KD> an A.P.I., indicate what exceptions are raised. KD> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-qaframe-spec-20050428/#error-handling-gp KD> [0] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-qaframe-spec-20041122/ Thank you, turning the list into examples as you have done avoids restricting the applicability. -- Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org Chair, W3C SVG Working Group W3C Graphics Activity Lead
Received on Tuesday, 3 May 2005 16:24:35 UTC