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

QAWG Issues

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 16:25:36 -0600
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020930160926.01fa7d90@rockynet.com>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org


QAWG,

Here are some issues listed as "Active" in the 2002-09-26 Issues List 
[1].  This incorporates the 20 new SpecGL issues (#80-99).  I will shortly 
be adding a couple others that have come up since.  This is for Wed (2-oct) 
telecon.

I'd suggest trying to close some of the non-SpecGL issues, and maybe some 
"easy" SpecGL issues (e.g., #80? #97?).

#68:  Status of Extech parts [all-framework]
#60: QA responsibilities of existing WGs [Ops]
#39: choice of MUST/SHOULD/MAY [Ops]
#64: choice of MUST/SHOULD/MAY [Spec]

#49: W3C standard license for test materials [Ops]
#50: liability from 3rd-party TM usage [Ops]
#59: W3C standard license for submitted test materials [Ops]
#32: Guidelines/checkpoints for branding [Ops]

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

#73: require atomicity of modules [Spec]
#74: scope of the minimality of level 1 [Spec]
#75: relationship of modules and levels [Spec]
#76: levels and profiles [Spec]
#77: different requirements for legacy specifications [Spec]
#78: checkpoint against implementation dependent features [Spec]
#69: Discourage flavors of conformance [Spec]
#61: Require standard terminology? [Spec]
#15: Address/define valid conformance claims? [Spec]
#51: Deprecated features [Spec]
#13: Inter-standard and multi-standard conformance [Spec?]

#23: Tests for SHOULD/MAY [Test]
#79: TestGL and "how to" guidelines  [Test]
#43: Relationship of "Certification Note" and Framework [Ops]
#14: How to do E&O [Process?]
#35: Resource supplement to other WGs [Ops]

Regards,
-Lofton.

[1] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/qawg-issues-html
Received on Monday, 30 September 2002 18:24:15 GMT

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