We are testing a prototype internally, and will make it public in the days or weeks to come. Now people have understood that this is just a tool. We wanted to see how the community would react, but anyone can talk about it or advertize it. It should be done in coordination with one or two Working Groups and in the context of a practical use.
An requirement don't have to be testable to be normative, but life become much harder if non testable normative requirements are provided in a specification.
It is definitely clear that is not the job of the QA IG to fix this document, but XML Core WG role. These questions take on additional weight when considered with respect to the security or the safety of the product in question.
He has, for example, just accepted a role as invited expert within the CSS working group.
Mobile Best Practices might be one canditate, and ERT WG with EARL might be another possible implementation of this language.
It has been shown that sometimes lecturers are quite positive about Web standards but they faced resistance through their department, specifically in Web design faculties. How can users determine these qualities? The test metadata schema could be reused in part by EARL which is likely to make this effort even more urgent.
He made a few points in his message which will be certainly discussed by the Web communities in the following days.
Take for example the resource "the weather in Oaxaca".
Having a summary of all discussions which have been done for this specific topic would be very useful and could serve as a QA Findings. It remains a closed, a one-way system.
Recently, there was a discussion about EBNF.
The Markup validator mailing list has several hundred subscribers. The project is still young, and we're already working on even better usability, localization, and more, more features. We published it quickly.
We could also look at avenues like VersionTracker, Freshmeat, etc.
Having a summary of all discussions which have been done for this specific topic would be very useful and could serve as a QA Findings.
We are testing a prototype internally, and will make it public in the days or weeks to come. Having a summary of all discussions which have been done for this specific topic would be very useful and could serve as a QA Findings.
We may receive an email or read a news which raises an interesting question to be develop in a longer post.
Worries have been expressed about merging the two documents.
It's hoped that as usage increases some companies will contribute resources for development or bug-fixing. A URI refers to a resource, but the resource is not one file on one web server. We have to define ways of organizing the QA IG and support the QA IG objectives. They highlight some common implementation issues in user agents and HTTP-based softwares.
A URI refers to a resource, but the resource is not one file on one web server.
That would be a rare sight, but it's not a fantasy.