W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa@w3.org > May 2005

Re: Answer to TAG comment on using our own example

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 18:25:34 +0200
Message-ID: <28546798.20050503182534@w3.org>
To: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Cc: www-qa@w3.org

On Tuesday, May 3, 2005, 5:12:46 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 1155):
KD> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005Mar/0011.html

KD> The QA Working Group agrees that being more specific about the story can
KD> only helps understand the point made and is now making an explicit
KD> reference to itself in the text:
KD>      In 2004, QA Working Group documents entered Candidate
KD>      Recommendation prior to a thorough quality review, resulting in a
KD>      huge number of issues to resolve and the eventual retreat back to
KD>      Working Draft for major revisions.
KD> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-qaframe-spec-20050428/#practice-principle

KD> (while the story doesn't exactly match the reality of what happened, the
KD> QA Working Group believes it can still be used as a fair illustration of
KD> the point made)

KD> [0] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-qaframe-spec-20041122/


Yes, I agree that it makes the point very well.


-- 
 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead
Received on Tuesday, 3 May 2005 16:25:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:40:36 UTC