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

Re: ICS for Spec Guidelines

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 16:38:28 -0700
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20021203163254.01e94c70@rockynet.com>
To: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>, www-qa-wg@w3.org

I have one question about this...

At 05:06 PM 12/3/02 -0500, Karl Dubost wrote:
>[...]
>Just a proposed wording and solution, I don't know if it makes sense.
>
>The QA Framework: Specification Guidelines Specification does not comply 
>itself to the Guideline 12. Publish an Implementation Conformance 
>Statement proforma.

Isn't the Spec-Checklist (which is linked from SpecGL),

http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-qaframe-spec-20021108/qaframe-spec-checklist.html

an ICS pro-forma for SpecGL?  The introduction says:

"...intended to be convenient for organizers and evaluators of QA projects 
in W3C Working Groups, to facilitate assessing specifications against the 
checkpoints. The table includes spaces for scoring each checkpoint, "yes" 
(satisfied), "no" (not satisfied), "n/a" (not applicable)."

Regards,
-Lofton.



>* CP 12.1
>I propose something done on the example of UAAG 1.0.
>
>***************************
><p>On [Date], [Specification X] [Status] ([URI]) conforms to <acronym 
>title="World Wide Web Consortium">W3C</acronym>'s "<acronym title="Quality 
>Assurance">QA</acronym> Framework: Specification Guidelines", 
>http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-qaframe-spec-20021108/. Conformance level: <a 
>href="QA-checklist.html">[Level-of-Conformance]</a>. </p>
>
>* CP 12.2
>And put it in the 3.2 Conformance definition of  QA Framework: 
>Specification Guidelines
>with modification of the wording of this section.
>
>A specification conforms to this document by satisfying the following 
>requirements.
>         1. The specification has reached one of the three levels of 
> Conformance.
>         2. The claim of QA conformance is included in the status section 
> of the specification as defined in the sample conformance claim.
>         3. The list of checkpoints covered by the specification itself 
> in  a specific file QA-checklist.html
>*************************
>
>The 3rd item is to make clear that people didn't apply to a checkpoint 
>because it was not necessary.
>
>
>--
>Karl Dubost / W3C - Conformance Manager
>           http://www.w3.org/QA/
>
>      --- Be Strict To Be Cool! ---
>
Received on Tuesday, 3 December 2002 18:37:24 GMT

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