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

UAAG 1.0 reviewed against SpecGL

From: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 19:00:05 -0500
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030221184515.00b66680@mailserver.nist.gov>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org

QA WG

The results of my review assignment to review the UAAG specification 
against the SpecGL showed that the UAAG spec conforms to the SpecGL.  It 
satisfied the P1 and P2 checkpoint and almost all the P3 checkpoint.  I'm 
working with the UAAG editors to see if UAAG could meet all the SpecGL 
checkpoints.   I did allow leeway in meeting some of the CPs, in that the 
UAAG spec did not always make the explicit statement that may be expected 
from the CP, but the intent and the message was there and satisfied the 
CP.  For example: Define Scope.  The UAAG does not have a Scope Section, 
however the scope was clear from reading the Introduction.

[1] is the review.  It is a work in progress, in that I will be updating it 
in the next few days to reflect new information that I have obtained from 
the UAAG editors - e.g., using the most recent version of the UAAG spec (my 
review used an older version).

After talking with Ian Jacobs, he indicated that the SpecGL wasn't used as 
they wrote the UAAG.  However, he did have discussion with Karl, Lofton and 
others regarding sections of the UAAG.  He also found the SpecGL a useful 
framework to check their UAAG spec against, to make sure that they covered 
everything.  Oh, and he did have some good suggestions for how we can 
improve the SpecGL (he will be sending these in as part of his LC review).


[1] http://www.w3.org/QA/Group/2003/02/specGL-uaag.html

regards
lynne
Received on Friday, 21 February 2003 19:00:53 GMT

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