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

[www-qa-wg] <none>

From: <lsr@nist.gov>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 12:34:42 -0500
Message-ID: <1038591282.3de7a532a59d5@imp.nist.gov>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
QA WG participants

For monday 2 Dec telcon, the SpecGL review will focus on the questions and 
issues that arose doing the review assignments (by Mark, David, and Sandra). 

As a result - The CPs have been prioritized and grouped.  In some cases, 
proposals are given, in others the resolution depends on the outcome of the 
discussion. 

IMPORTANT:  There are 2 aspects to consider here: 
1. changes that need to be made to the CP to clarify the CP. (labeled For CP) 
2. changes we need to make to the SpecGL so that it conforms to the SpecGL 
(based on Mark’s review [1]).  (Labeled, For SpecGL) 

QUESTIONS and ISSUES:

General (applies to many CPs):  When a CP doesn’t apply, should a 
specification be required to indicate somewhere, that xxx doesn’t apply?  This 
could be done in the ICS. Should CPs include a discussion of what happens if 
the CP doesn’t apply? 

2.1 Identify all classes of products 
What are the classes of products?  According to the Scope, the SpecGL applies 
to Specification. However, we go on to distinguish between existing specs and 
new specs.  Also Conformance Clause addresses WG specifications. 
What is the class of products?  1 class= specification or 2 classes: new 
specs and old specs. 
Clarification:  In the scope we define specifications to be W3C Technical 
supports.  Do Technical Reports include Recommendations and Guidelines or 
just Recommendations? 
Proposal: 
For SpecGL, specifically state in the Scope, the class of product that this 
document targets is xxxx. 

13.2 Distinguish normative and informative text. (David and Mark listed this) 
SpecGL specifically identifies non-normative references, but otherwise it 
isn’t clear.  Is it sufficient to only label informative items and by 
default everything else is normative? Do we want editors to label all 
sections, explain in Scope what is or isn’t normative? 
Proposal: For CP, do we need to add anything here or cover this in ExTech? 
For SpecGL, in Scope add a general statement that examples and the 
rationale are informative unless otherwise indicated and that the GL, CP, 
and ‘to fulfill…’ are normative. 

Is the ExTech a normative or informative reference?  (see also 10.3 below) 
Proposal: For SpecGL, add it to the appropriate reference list? 

10.3 Make normative reference to specifications on which the current 
specification depends. 
Does the SpecGL depend on the ExTech?  It does to satisfy CP 1.3 Provide 
examples.  So, is ExTech normative or informative? 

14.1 Provide test assertions (for SpecGL conformance to SpecGL) 
Issue 99: Scope of definition of test assertion. 
What are the test assertions for the SpecGL?  The CP or the ‘to 
fulfill…’?  Is it ‘derived from the spec’s requirements? Can they all be 
measures/tested? (e.t., 13.3). Test assertion defined as a statement of 
behavior, action or condition that can be measured or tested.  It is 
derived from the specification’s requirements. 
Issue 99: Does the definition preclude expressing a test assertion in a 
formal language without words and phrases rather than in sentences?  What 
is definition in Glossary? 
Is there a mapping between the spec and test assertion? 
Proposal:  ? 

12.1 Provide an Implementation Conformance Statement proforma 
Is the Checklist for the SpecGL the ICS? 
Proposal; use the Checklist as the ICS, make necessary adjustments.  Editor 
(and Lofton?) action. 

1.4  Provide an example for each formal description 
What is a formal description? Definition is unclear. 
Does SpecGL provide this? 

13. 3 Use consistent terminology 
Can this be verified?  What exactly is required? Should this CP be removed 
and left to Manual of Style and Susan L to worry about? 

GL8: Discretionary Items and 
13.4 Provide a fast way to find conformance information (David and Sandra 
revies) 
Issues of navigation and discovery were under-represented in the 
checkpoints.  For example, discretionary items are only detectable by a 
thorough reading of the entire document. 
Proposal: ? 

1.1 Define the scope of the specification 
Clearly there is a scope section.  But much of the wording is vague and 
imprecise, e.g., ‘it is not expected…’ 
Proposal: editor action to clean up 

CP 1.2 Provide User Scenarios 
CP 1.3 Provide examples 
Proposal (Karl): For CP change to Use Scenarios 
For SpecGL: Include in ExTech, link is already provided. 

2.3 Identify which of the categories of object are specified in the 
document as a whole 
Unclear what ‘types of objects’ are and what object SpecGL would be.  List 
given in GL 2 are called ‘categories’.  Also need to define it, not just 
give an example of what it is. 
Proposal: For CP, change ‘types of objects’ to ‘categories’, also add 
category of ‘guideline’ to the list. 

3.1 Specify any universal requirements for minimum functionality 
Unclear what is meant by this requirements.  For the SpecGL, is Level A 
considered the minimum functionality?  Does a specification (in our case 
SpecGL) need to explicitly say ‘Level A is the minimal requirement for all 
specifications’ 

3.2 Identify strict conformance requirements 
SpecGL doesn’t explicitly specify this, although it is implied that SpecGL 
doesn’t do strict conformance (see conformance claim wording section 3.2, “ 
…meets at least all degree X conformance requirements’. 

9.1 Indicate if extensions are disallowed 
9.2 Indicate if extensions are allowed 
Is there a way to combine these? 
Proposal: For CP, Lofton proposal [find email] 
For SpecGL, need to add explicit words to address the itemized list.  Not 
have use cases or project requirements, so can’t do last MUST. Editor action 

  9.3 Prevent extensions from contradicting the specification 
Proposal: For SpecGL, Editor action to explicitly state. 

11.2 Provide specific wording of the claim 
Make sure all MUST items are in included in Section 3.2. 
Should the example at end of Section 3.2 move to ExTech 
For SpecGL conformance to SpecGL, not all the items are satisfied. 
Proposal: For CP and For SpecGL, Editor action in Section 3.2, add version 
and date to conformance claim. Also add them to the list. 


[1] www.w3.org/QA/Group/2002/11/qaframe-spec-20021108-specgl 
Received on Friday, 29 November 2002 12:35:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:11 GMT