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

OpsGL discussion topics for 11/18

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 15:41:30 -0700
Message-Id: <>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org

QAWG participants --

In the process of reorganizing the text of OpsGL for publication -- 
especially extracting verifiable fulfillment criteria (test assertions) -- 
a number of lurking questions became evident.  I tried to flag those where 
the meaning was ambiguous, or where I made a choice which may have 
unintentionally changed the meaning.

All of these are marked in the 20021111 OpsGL text with "@@" and 
blue-styled background, except those marked below as "new".

These will be for discussion at the 11/18 QAWG telecon.

Potentially substantive

CP1.1:  Should we find another term, other than "QA level-n"?

CP1.1:  (NEW) get rid of "normative use cases" from table?

CP1.1:  (NEW) 2-column table is problematic:  Might be "level-7" in one 
column, level-1 in another; might satisfy row5/col1 but not row3/col1

CP2.3:  Should this be "not applicable" for existing working groups?  (The 
CP was originally aimed specifically at the Call for Participation.)

CP3.1:  Do we mean specifically the Rec-track spec stages? Or do we 
actually intend some flexibility with the "usually bound"?

CP3.2:  Any disagreement with the "@@was 'if'" change?

CP4.3:  What is "QA Framework"?

CP4.4:  Any disagreement with "plus Web page"?

CP4.4:  How much detail, if any, about public vs. closed lists, multiple 
lists, etc?  Does it need to be a discussion 
list?  (Read/write).  Proposal:  "at least one publicly archived list for 
WG announcements, submission of public comments, etc."

CP4.6:  Does WG need to specify policy, whether or not branding is 
supported?  Or only define the branding policy, if branding is 
supported?  Proposal.  The latter.

CP6.2:  May need reworking after discussions with Legal.  Question.  Does 
anyone want Issue #49 reopened, after seeing initial exchanges with Joseph 

CP6.4:  Where is the disclaimer to be?  Proposal:  leave it vague in OpsGL, 
just require that the disclaimer must be "prominently" (?) associated with 
the TM.  Maybe deal with it in OpsET.

CP6.5:  Although "may" is in non-normative usage, is it the word we intend 
here?  And is "MAY" correct in the fulfillment criteria?


GL4:  Whoever originally drafted it, can you supply the two missing links?

CP4.1:  Move text to ET?

CP4.3:  need to draft discussion/rationale.

CP5.3:  Can the originator of this text provide link(s), please?

CP5.4:  need to draft discussion/rationale.

CP7.3:  need to draft discussion/rationale.

CP8.1:  need to draft discussion/rationale.

CP8.2:  need to draft discussion/rationale.

CP8.3:  need to draft discussion/rationale.

Received on Thursday, 14 November 2002 17:41:22 UTC

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