W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > April 2002

Re: Proposal on forming of W3C Test Group (action item A-2002-03-1-3)

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 16:06:37 -0600
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020411160633.04212580@rockynet.com>
To: Dimitris Dimitriadis <dimitris@ontologicon.com>
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
At 07:37 PM 4/8/02 +0200, Dimitris Dimitriadis wrote:
[...]
>>Thanks for the effort to start sorting this out.  Whatever the ultimate 
>>organizational details, it clearly is the next major piece of the QA's 
>>work.  It also relates to a question that I have been thinking about for 
>>a while:  with our current QAWG scope and near-future plans, are there 
>>omissions that interest people?  I.e., are there topics and subjects that 
>>people, including potential new participants, might want to work on?
>[dd] Test Group, intraWG communications, setting up W3C frameworks for 
>both isolated specificaiton testing but also interoperability testing, 
>unambigous reporting language (the work that has been done with EARL) test 
>packaging (could be an "appendix" of sorts to the actual spec, like the 
>validator coudl be viewed as an integral part of the various xxML specs.

Good topics, all.

We (QAWG) are at a 0.5 anniversary -- about 6 months since our first f2f 
and the start of fairly active work.  All effort so far has gone into 
setup/logistics, and the Framework documents.  We haven't yet resolved 
where we are going with the latter.  Rec track?  Freeze earlier as Notes or 
reference documents?  In May, we plan to publish four parts, and we plan to 
start work on "Test Materials".

We should, as a group, review our current direction, priorities and 
resource deployment.  The May publications and planned start of TM parts 
are a natural milestone for this, and we might also want to have some time 
at the start of  the June F2F.  In the meantime, we should encourage 
further email discussion, and the following would also be worthwhile...

[...]
>[dd] OK, I could, as I promised Kirill, form a more detailed proposal and 
>do a quick mapping between (what I think) needs to be done and what is 
>already taken into account in QA as it is now.

-Lofton.

p.s. At some point it downstream -- when we're ready for full scale 
discussion and brainstorming -- it might also be good to shift this thread 
to the IG list.
Received on Thursday, 11 April 2002 18:06:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:09 GMT