W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > February 2003

Re: Outline of Boston presentation

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 08:20:57 -0700
Message-Id: <>
To: Olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org


Your point is well-taken, about the collection of tools that we already 
have -- we should integrate that information into the Boston kit.

At 02:14 PM 2/20/2003 +0900, Olivier Thereaux wrote:
>On Thursday, Feb 20, 2003, at 03:39 Asia/Tokyo, Lofton Henderson wrote:
>>But we could also have more fairly quickly -- e.g., forms based on the 
>>templates, that would auto-generate the markup of the templates with the 
>>fill-in-the-blanks completed.  (Such things could be done, if we decided 
>>they were worth the resources.
>If I understand what you're talking about, this is exactly what the ",new" 
>comma tool does.
>See e.g http://www.w3.org/QA/,new

It is not exactly what I had in mind.  But yes, it would be a valuable tool 
in its own right.  To ",new", we could add radio buttons for "QA Charter 
template" and "QA Process Document", and generate templates that are 
equivalent to the core content of:

[1] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2003/02/OpsET-charter-20030217.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2003/02/OpsET-qapd-20030217.html

What I was really thinking about is more like your LC comment form,

[3] http://www.w3.org/QA/2003/02/LC/Ops

which would gather some of the information (WG-name, specification-name, 
test-materials, ...), and generate a skeleton/template that has the 
information embedded.  (*If* we decide it's a good idea, and *when* OpsGL 
stabilizes, we could actually take a phased approach.  The radio buttons 
could initially generate [1] and [2], and eventually could be upgraded to 
launch a form or process similar to [3].)

>Also, don't forget we (QA) *have* tools. Lots of them.
>The QA activity (at large, not just the WG) is developing, maintaining or 
>providing guidance for the development of a big number of Tools 
>(validators, MUTAT for tests, etc.)
>See http://www.w3.org/QA/Tools/

Excellent reference, which we should embed in the slides.  I think it was a 
conclusion of the telecon that we ought to list the tools (or at least 
point to a list, with maybe a couple of "for example" in the slides 

Received on Thursday, 20 February 2003 10:26:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:14:30 UTC