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

Re: New WG version of specGL

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 11:41:56 -0700
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030129112129.039d0280@rockynet.com>
To: Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org

The new priority-sort ICS looks good.

I have these minor comments:

1.) "Implementation Conformance Statement" does not appear anywhere in the 
ICS document itself.  Should it?  The SpecGL text says this in reference to 
its checklist:  "The latter is an Implementation Conformance Statement 
(ICS) pro-forma for this specification. (See GL12.)"   Should something 
like this appear in the priority-sort checklist also?  "This is an...(ICS)..."

2.) Before each table is a statement like, "To be A-conformant with the 
guidelines, the following checkpoints must be fulfilled:"  I suggest adding 
a mention of priority, e.g., "To be A-conformant with the guidelines, all 
of the Priority 1 checkpoints must be fulfilled:"

Hmmm... I just noticed that before the 2nd table it says, "To be 
AA-conformant with the guidelines, the following checkpoints must be 
fulfilled:".  Which is slightly misleading (because P1 must also be 
satisfied).  Should say, "To be AA-conformant with the guidelines, all of 
the Priority 2 checkpoints must be fulfilled (in addition to the above 
Priority 1 checkpoints):"  Similarly for 3rd table.

-Lofton.

At 04:15 PM 1/29/03 +0100, you wrote:
>Le mer 29/01/2003 ŗ 12:34, Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux a ťcrit :
> > - the ICS proposed as an appendix is new:
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-qaframe-spec-20030210/qaframe-spec-ics
>
>Oops, this is broken. The real URI is:
>http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2003/01/qaframe-spec/qaframe-spec-ics
>
>Dom
>--
>Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/
>W3C/ERCIM
>mailto:dom@w3.org
Received on Wednesday, 29 January 2003 13:40:15 GMT

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