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

OpsGL CP1.1 commitment table

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 12:30:56 -0700
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030112121157.04344340@rockynet.com>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
QAWG -

Here is the resolution of my action items about the OpsGL commitment table 
[1].  There were these aspects:

1.) that the columns (C) of the table were inextricably combined in 
satisfying a given level;
2.) that the levels (rows, R) were nested, and someone could in principle 
satisfy e.g. R3C1 without satisfying R1C1 (ignoring the "in addition to..." 
clause, of course);
3.) that the conformance requirements were fuzzy.

After a lot of thinking about it, I decided that #1 was okay.  Looking at 
CP1.1 (P1), 1.2 (P2), and 1.3 (P3), we are saying that we want you to do 
*both* of these (spec criteria and TM criteria) to meet a given level, and 
if you meet level M for spec but only level N for TM (M>N), then you have 
only satisfied the lower level (associated with the higher priority 
CP).  I.e., to get to AA or AAA conformance, you must do more in *each* 
category, spec and TM, not more in just one of them.  I'm okay with that.

Similarly, I'm okay with #2.  We believe that the items in the lowest 
levels (rows) are the most important, therefore you shouldn't be allowed to 
skip over them.

So attached is a proposal to tighten up number three.  Please have a look 
for Monday telecon.  Consider:

** general approach okay?
** specific questions flagged by "@@"?

-Lofton.

[1] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2002/12/qaframe-ops-20021220#commitment-table


Received on Sunday, 12 January 2003 14:35:53 GMT

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