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

Fwd: Comments on Last Call WD QA Framework: Specification Guidelines

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:10:05 -0700
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030310160327.03ec0bb0@rockynet.com>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org

Attn esp. Lynne/Dom,
Lofton --

1.) It seems that lots of people outside the QAWG are not using the 
forms.  I'd like to propose that the responsible lead editor or issue 
coordinator for a spec should enter these into the forms, so that we will 
have them all in one place when we start processing.  Lynne (according to 
Boston minutes) already agreed to do this for IJ.  I'll do it for Intro 
comments that have been sent.  Lynne/Dom, are you okay with doing this for 
SpecGL comments like the below?

Of course, all WG commenters should send their own comments by the forms.

2.) Should one of us qa-chairs send a reminder to the Chairs list, about 
the pending close of Last Call review, and prominently call out (and link 
to) the forms for commenting?

-Lofton.


>Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:20:04 -0500 (EST)
>Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:19:55 -0500
>From: Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@sun.com>
>To: www-qa@w3.org
>Cc: w3c-xml-protocol-wg@w3.org
>X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551)
>Subject: Comments on Last Call WD QA Framework: Specification Guidelines
>X-Archived-At: 
>http://www.w3.org/mid/0A3BF3F0-533E-11D7-91E9-0003937568DC@sun.com
>Resent-From: www-qa@w3.org
>X-Mailing-List: <www-qa@w3.org> archive/latest/839
>X-Loop: www-qa@w3.org
>Sender: www-qa-request@w3.org
>Resent-Sender: www-qa-request@w3.org
>List-Id: <www-qa.w3.org>
>List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
>List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:www-qa-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>X-RCPT-TO: <lofton@rockynet.com>
>
>
>I recently reviewed the QA Framework: Specification Guidelines[1] on 
>behalf of the XML Protocol WG. Here are my detailed comments:
>
>Status
>Despite being billed as a LC draft, there's no mention of this in the spec.
>
>Section 1.1, second bullet
>Second sentence implies that all checkpoints must be satisfied to comply 
>with the guidelines whereas only priority 1 checkpoints are mandatory.
>
>Section 2
>Checkpoint 1.1 - rather wooly conformance requirements.
>
>Checkpoint 1.2 - can use cases and examples be in a separate document from 
>the main spec ?
>
>Guideline 2, third para - typo 'as either or producers' remove 'or'
>
>Checkpoint 2.1 - second conformance requirement refers to list of classes 
>but its not clear which list it is referring to. If its the list under 
>guideline 2 then that list is non-exhaustive so requiring people to use 
>that list is somewhat limiting.
>
>Checkpoint 2.3 - what is a category of object ? The same as a class of 
>product ?
>
>Checkpoint 2.4 - 'define their relationships and interaction with other 
>dimensions of variability' this is a confusing checkpoint that is repeated 
>in each successive guideline. It's really not clear exactly what is intended.
>
>Checkpoint 3.1 - conformance requirements - only one section for this or 
>are multiple OK ?
>
>Checkpoint 4.4 - 'experience shows ... meets all the pertinent checkpoints 
>of this document' -  what experience ? As this is not yet a recommendation 
>this seems like a rather strong statement.
>
>Guideline 5 - Modules are non-hierarchical - can modules have dependencies 
>on other modules ? If so, isn't this a hierarchy ?
>
>Checkpoint 7.1 - conformance requirements imply a single section for 
>deprecated features - is it not OK to include deprecations where they 
>occur without a summary section ?
>
>Checkpoint 8.4 - conformance requirements not clear, what does 'document 
>the identified policies for handling discretionary choices' mean.
>
>Guideline 9 - A very well thought out section IMO.
>
>Checkpoint 14.1 - conformance requirements - is a separate document OK or 
>does this have to be in the same doc as the rest of the spec.
>
>Section 3.3 - amusing that this section doesn't meet checkpoint 14.1 and 
>therefore renders the document as only A-conforming to itself. Would be 
>better if the document were AAA-conforming to itself IMO.
>
>Section 3.4 - Example - not true, see above comment on 3.3.
>
>Section 7 - date for LC WD is in the future (or at least it was when the 
>doc was published).
>
>Regards,
>Marc (on behalf of the XML Protocol WG).
>
>[1] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2003/01/qaframe-spec/
>
>--
>Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
>Web Technologies and Standards, Sun Microsystems.
>
Received on Monday, 10 March 2003 18:09:25 GMT

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