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

candidate OpsGL publication version

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2002 12:16:22 -0700
Message-Id: <>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org

QAWG (for Monday agenda) --

New OpsGL Draft

Ref:  http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2002/10/qaframe-ops-20021103.html

(Caveat.  This does not presently link to an Ops-Extech companion.)

I finished a minimal conversion to verifiable, testable assertion style.  I 
have tried to isolate at least one "to fulfill" criterion for each 
checkpoint, and apply test-assertion markup.  Many checkpoints are slightly 
reworded (e.g., to move "In the Process Document,.." to the fulfillment 

In all cases I have tried to NOT change what we appeared to be saying and 
requiring, but rather to isolate and clarify it.  You will notice a number 
of blue ('editorial' class) "@@" notes and questions.  The flagged problems 
were in the previous published version, just better hidden by the casual 
(less-testable) style.


We should publish this, instead of the partially done (re: TA makeover) 
draft of 10/31 [1].  Specifically:

1.) for publication, suppress almost all of the blue "@@" notes;
2.) indicate "work in progress" (for verifiable, TA-markup style) in the SoTD;

3.) keep the blue "@@" markup version for the WG working version, 
4.) look at and resolve the blue "@@" question before Last Call.


The only possible disadvantage is that you don't have a lot of time to 
review this draft very carefully, compared to the partially-done draft of 
10/31 [1].  But I invite you to spot check any number of checkpoints in 
GL3-8 (these are the ones revised since [1]) and verify that:

1.) in every case, I have tried hard to preserve what I believe the 
previous "WG approved" document said;

2.) the more rigorous and verifiable style emphasizes some issues and 
questions (note:  "emphasizes", even without the "@@" comments in 
blue).  But these issues are lurking in the older versions as well -- just 
not as obvious.

3.) it is better to publish that, than to publish something that obscures 
the issues;

4.) we can alert to the presence of unresolved issues in SoTD -- "this is a 
work in progress, 1st order conversion to TA markup style, QAWG has not 
discussed and resolved all the revealed issues yet, comments welcome".

5.) this is the last public WD before Last Call, and would very much reduce 
the size of the jump that there would be from [1] to "Last Call".  (You 
aren't supposed to be making big jumps at LC).

6.) I think the CPs (of GL3-8) read *much* better, with the removal of 
'howto' qualifiers like "In the Process Document," -- just like the removal 
of "In the Charter.." that we agreed for GL1-2.


We'll decide whether to use this as the basis for publication.


[0] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2002/10/qaframe-ops-20021103.html
[1] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2002/10/qaframe-ops-20021031
Received on Sunday, 3 November 2002 14:19:59 UTC

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