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

20 new issues

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 18:26:48 -0600
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020926180338.03395bf0@rockynet.com>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org

QAWG,

New issues list is at:

http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/qawg-issues-html.html

The major change is addition of 20 new SpecGL issues, culled by Lynne 
(thanks!) from recent email dialog about SpecGL.  I'm sure that I have made 
errors as I integrated them into the issues list.  Please 
review.  Particular things to look for:

** unhelpful links (e.g., wrong message in archives).
** inaccurate summaries
** inaccurate proposals
** missed major issues (I have 1-2 in mind to add)

GOAL.  Our goal is not to restart discussion of the issues right 
now.  Rather, we want to have a complete and coherent set to deal with at 
Tokyo f2f, whose resolution will guide the next SpecGL version.  (We could 
also pick on some of the smaller, easier ones at the next (2-oct) regular 
telecon, if there is time.)

NOTE.  Per recent Lead Editors' telecon, we will have a "Responsible" 
person for each issue.  By default, it is the corresponding spec editor, 
unless otherwise arranged.  Lynne has agreed to be the owner of the SpecGL 
issues.  Also, we decided to try to log each issue with a "Proposal" for 
resolution.

Here are the changes:

New issues
-----

    #99  Scope of definition of test assertion.
    #98  Should test assertions be included in a spec?
    #97  Distinguish normative and informative text.
    #96  Why require Implementation Conformance Statement?
    #95  Is it practical to "provide specific wording of conformance claims"?
    #94  Why identify unused DoV (ckpt 10.5)?
    #93  Why register extensions?
    #92  Remove guideline on Extensions (GL9).
    #91  Why should discretionary items be handled consistently within an 
implementation (CK8.4)?
    #90  Remove guideline on deprecation (GL6).
    #89  Is the SpecGL a spec?
    #88  SpecGL objective and value.
    #87  Should the SpecGL elaborate on DoV definition and discussion.
    #86  Checkpoint 1.5 should be lowered to priority 3.
    #85  Should every test assertion be covered by a example?
    #84  Should examples and user scenarios be lower priorities?
    #83  Clean up subjective and imprecise wording.
    #82  Re-title Guideline 1, replacing "use cases" with "scope".
    #81  Definition of specification testability
    #80  RFC 2119 Keywords are used inconsistently in the SpecGL.

Revised issues
-----
    #79  Should Test Guidelines address how to write a good test suite?
    #68  What should be the status of the "ExTech" parts, and how should 
they relate to their "Guidelines" parts?
    #64  Use of Keywords SHOULD, SHALL, etc in SpecGuide.
    #57  Use of RFC2119 in Operational Guidelines

Cheers,
-Lofton.
Received on Thursday, 26 September 2002 20:25:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:10 GMT