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

Re: New Discussion Drafts & telcon

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2002 20:25:34 -0700
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20020106201105.02d5ede0@rockynet.com>
To: "Olivier Thereaux" <ot@w3.org>, www-qa-wg@w3.org
Olivier,

Thanks again for your comments.  Here are some replies...

At 12:25 PM 1/3/2002 +0900, Olivier Thereaux wrote:

>[...]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" ?

Daniel will finally sort this out, per 1/3 telcon action item.


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

I'll change it.


>-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.

Okay, we'll put this into the next drafts.


>-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.

This is a good point.  I'll work on it in the next draft.

>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.

"test suites" usage needs to be reviewed.  It's a convenient handle, but we 
use it too much, including places where it is too narrow.


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

Right, we'll try to add consistency in next versions.


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

I agree, thanks for the better wording.


>-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).

I think this might have been improved in the 1/2/02 drafts.  Please have a 
look and tell me what you think.


>-2.1 same as above. please insert disclaimer about lists here (at
>least).

Do you mean about them being publicly archived?

>A pointer to W3C mailing-list policy would not be a lucury,
>either. (http://www.w3.org/Mail and /Mail/Spam)

Okay.


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

Right, the 1/2/02 drafts changed this.

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

Thanks, will fix.


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

Good point.


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

"horizontal review"?

(1/2/03 drafts, both Intro and Procs&Ops, have more content here.  Please 
let us know what you think).


>-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.

Good point, to add TAG to the list.  See later email dialog on Issue #22 -- 
it has gotten into the relationship to the "horizontal WGs" in more depth.

I'll turn the rest over to Kirill, but note -- we intend to fix things like 
the no-markup acronyms before going to /TR.

Thanks,
-Lofton.
(Intro editor)




>*********************
>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 Sunday, 6 January 2002 22:27:41 GMT

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