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

Re: SpecGL Use Cases

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 13:02:46 -0600
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030621125740.03f2d9d0@rockynet.com>
To: Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org

Generally I like them.  A couple of small comments:

At 06:23 PM 6/20/03 +0200, Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux wrote:
>Here is what Lynne and I (but mostly Lynne) have been producing as use
>cases for specGL. Our current intent is to insert the short version
>(bulleted list) at the end of the introduction, while having the
>detailed list as an appendix to the document.

I haven't thought this through yet.  But what about the idea of putting the 
detailed description in SpecET, linked from the brief description in SpecGL 
intro?

>[...]
> >
> > Use Case 1: Working Group is writing a new specification or new edition
> > Actors: WG, Specification authors/editors, QA WG
> > a)      WG develops a requirements document and/or use cases supporting 
> the
> > developing of a new Specification
> > b)      Prior to writing the specification, the WG and the specification
> > authors review the SpecGL to help in planning the content, structure and
> > presentation style of the specification.
> > c)      WG identifies the applicable SpecGL guidelines and checkpoints and
> > strive to satisfy the conformance requirements of the applicable SpecGL
> > checkpoint.
> > d)      WG discusses and determines its conformance policy  specifically,
> > what goes into the conformance clause, whether to subset the technology
> > (e.g., define profiles, modules), the need for and effect of optional
> > features, discretionary choices, extensions, etc.
> > e)      Authors take action (e.g., write text, structure document) to meet
> > at least all Priority 1 checkpoints.
> > f)      Authors use normative language to identify requirements and labels
> > normative and informative text.
> > g)      Authors use markup to indicate testable assertions and enable test
> > traceability.

Before this step (between #f and #g), shouldn't that authors deliberate and 
chose a writing style, either embedded TA (implied by #g), or clear 
expression of non-TA conformance requirements?  (Maybe this is implicit in 
step #f?)

All for now,
-Lofton.
Received on Saturday, 21 June 2003 15:01:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:14 GMT