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

Re: CSS Mockup for QA Guidelines

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 10:35:47 -0600
Message-Id: <>
To: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org

(& other Lead Editors)

At 04:48 PM 6/23/03 -0400, Karl Dubost wrote:

>By my action item
>=> AI: Karl to create the markup and the style for a complete CP by June
>For the Markup, look the source, luke. :) It might be enough clear. If 
>explanation is needed, tell me.

Great!  The markup is easy to read.  A couple of small questions:

1.)  You based your mock-up markup on the LC OpsGL [1], and have a "Note" 

That particular "Note" in OpsGL has become "Related checkpoints" in CP3.2 
in the current editor's draft [2].  In fact, OpsGL now has 10 CPs with 
"Related checkpoints", as a result of adding clarifications requested 
during Last Call.

I don't know if any other GL documents will use it ("related checkpoints") 
as extensively as OpsGL.  But, for example, I thought that SpecGL and 
TestGL could even refer to each other's TA-related checkpoints.

So the questions is:  should we have "Note", or "Related checkpoints", or both?

Although OpsGL does not have any "Note" productions anymore, on the other 
hand there is no cost to these things.  So I guess I would favor "both".

Other thoughts?

2.) For the next question, let me illustrate with a source example from the 

><div class="Rationale">
>         <h6>Rationale</h6>
>         <p>There will be products that support different
>         versions and/or different errata levels of the specification 
> after it becomes
>         Recommendation. Building specification versioning/errata support 
> into the
>         test materials' infrastructure will allow users to select and 
> apply the
>         appropriate test materials for a given product.</p>

We GL editors currently work on an "unformatted" master text.  Mostly, 
section numbers and GL numbers and CP numbers are not edited into the text, 
but are added by an XSLT transformation step before publication.  So in 
theory, that transformation could key on the markup, "class='Rationale'", 
to add the "<h6>Rationale<h6>" during the transformation.  I.e., editors 
would only need the markup, and wouldn't have to put the <h6>Rationale<h6> 
into the Master text.

Does anyone have any opinions, one way or the other, about the best 
way?  I.e., editors add the markup, versus add it to the XSLT transformation?


[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-ops/#Ck-support-spec-version

>Karl Dubost / W3C - Conformance Manager
>           http://www.w3.org/QA/
>      --- Be Strict To Be Cool! ---
Received on Tuesday, 24 June 2003 12:35:52 UTC

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