- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 18:25:34 +0200
- 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