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

Re: New Discussion Drafts & telcon

From: Olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 12:25:39 +0900
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20020103122539.B8527@w3.mag.keio.ac.jp>

dear all.



here is a quick review of the QAframework documents. Unfortunately, I'm
more or less offline these days, so this is a (focused) comment on the
2dec/5dec version of part 1 and 2, and I didn't even have time for a
deep review...


*********************
QAFW 1 - intro - WD2dec2001
*********************

-header : "working draft" or "draft note" ?

-status: QAA for QA Activity is quite new to me. I always saw QA for the
activity.

-status: when giving a pointer or inviting people to comment on a public
list, please be extremely careful, give warnings that this is a public
list, that many people will be able to read the message, that the
message will be publicly archived on our web, etc. I've put such a
disclaimer on the IG (?) page.

-1.1 "for building conformance test suites and tools". I wonder if this
is the real, full scope of this document. I think I'd rather say this is
a framework for "adding QA to your work", or something like this. Might
be too vague, I admit it, but limiting the goal to test suites and
conformance (and later in the document, to test suites only) seems too
limited to me.

-1.1 same comment, later, there is a lack of consistency in the
goals/scope : "conformance materials" "conformance test materials" "test
suites". 

-1.2 "specifications (RECs)" sounds strange. I'd rather we use
"technical reports (TRs)",and point to /TR

-1.3 it could be a good ting to add something about the QA process in
general, why "internal, in-process" QA done by the WG is the best thing
(opposed  to horizontal review, post-process).

-2.1 same as above. please insert disclaimer about lists here (at
least). A pointer to W3C mailing-list policy would not be a lucury,
either. (http://www.w3.org/Mail and /Mail/Spam)

-2.1 the qa-wg list is not empty any more :) clarification about the
separation would be nice

-2.2 the links are correct, but not the text. it's /QA/WG and /QA/IG,
not /QA/QAWG and /QA/QAIG

-2.2 Is it a good thing to link member-only pages (/Group) from a public
document?

-2.9 something about horizontal review. can be asked for, but in
advance, and in-process consultancy is prefered, because of limited
resources.

-4.2 it's not in the scope of this document to do this in details, but
adding the TAG in the list, and possibly clarifying QA and TAG roles
would be good.




*********************
QAFW 2 - op gl - WD5dec2001
*********************

-header : "working draft" or "draft note"

-status : pointer to the list 

1: s/ames/aims/

2.4.4: s/must to sort out/must sort out/

whole document : a lot of acronyms and abbreviations, I know it can be
painful, but i'd recommend the use of the appropriate markup for those.
On a personal level, I hate it when I hear about, say "MoUs" or "RAND",
ans learn what tat thing is a week later. On a QA level, since one of
the goals of the activity is to improve our specifications, there are
good writing practices we should encourage, and, of course, enforce in
our own work. Hence simplicity, clarity, and rich markup.



********************


kindest regards, happy new year to all of you, and talk to you at the
telcon today.

-- 
Olivier
Received on Wednesday, 2 January 2002 22:27:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:08 GMT