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

Re: ICS for Spec Guidelines

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 07:45:34 -0700
Message-Id: <>
To: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>, www-qa-wg@w3.org

At 08:51 AM 12/4/2002 -0500, Lynne Rosenthal wrote:

>I also am a bit confused.  We agreed that the SpecGL should have an ICS 
>and I think that the Checklist with some additions could serve that purpose.

Actually, I thought it was a suitable ICS "as is" (although I might add an 
instruction that any "N/A" answer link to an explanatory comment, in a 
section after the table.)

What sort of additions were you thinking of?

>However, I think Karl's wording may fit in nicely for how to specify 
>claims to the SpecGL.

Yes, I thought that also.  It was the "no ICS" that I was questioning.

Since Karl is the 2nd person to assert that SpecGL does not have an ICS, it 
raises a question about the checkpoint (which I asked earlier):  in order 
to satisfy it, you MUST publish an ICS.  MUST it be labelled as an ICS?  Or 
SHOULD it be labelled as an ICS?  Or ...?  I.e., SpecGL's ICS is labelled 
as a "Checklist".  Does SpecGL pass or fail?

If the answer is "fail", then it would seem that an additional normative 
requirement needs to be added to the "to fulfill" section of the checkpoint.


>At 06:38 PM 12/3/2002, Lofton Henderson wrote:
>>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),
>>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)."
>>>* 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 
>>>         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 Wednesday, 4 December 2002 09:49:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:14:29 UTC