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.
In fact, it is not rare that several editions of a book share the same ISBN number: in the context of the ISBN, they are similar. What software is secure?
It would include the time constraints, budget allocations, resources, etc.
Once the document has reached maturity, we might publish it as a QA Finding, probably on the QA Weblog. The document defines a minimal set of metadata elements that can usefully be applied to tests that are intended for publication within a test suite.
It helps create better specifications by raising and discussing technical issues, by reviewing materials, by providing fresh input.
It is definitely clear that is not the job of the QA IG to fix this document, but XML Core WG role. But do we stand by our own criterias of quality? Some Web Standards User groups are forming at key Universities and Colleges to provide and advocate a method for change - WaSP Edu is providing interviews with these as they find out about them.
The WASP is now interested in developing a kind of curriculum framework to help lecturers into their teaching. These questions take on additional weight when considered with respect to the security or the safety of the product in question.
Certification is a legal process between two parties.
It's hoped that as usage increases some companies will contribute resources for development or bug-fixing.
The document defines a minimal set of metadata elements that can usefully be applied to tests that are intended for publication within a test suite.
We have to define ways of organizing the QA IG and support the QA IG objectives. It helps create better specifications by raising and discussing technical issues, by reviewing materials, by providing fresh input.
Mobile Best Practices might be one canditate, and ERT WG with EARL might be another possible implementation of this language. The article contained a simple RDF schema for this model. It remains a closed, a one-way system. We have to make very clear that it's not a way to collect issues about Web architecture document itself.
There are rules, driving the development of specifications.
We may receive an email or read a news which raises an interesting question to be develop in a longer post. Once the document has reached maturity, we might publish it as a QA Finding, probably on the QA Weblog. The Markup validator mailing list has several hundred subscribers. People can voice their disagreement, pushing their issues.
The framework will have to give hints on strategies for change. We could also look at avenues like VersionTracker, Freshmeat, etc.
We will push the requirements interview phase and decide where to head from there.
A hard-coreof supporters provide help.
How can users determine these qualities? The new draft will be posted to QA IG mailing-list for comments.