W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > April 2004

Re: QAH draft for Wednesday

From: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 11:04:45 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>, www-qa-wg@w3.org

Some comments on the initial sections of the QAH [1]

1.  Question regarding Title.
I like QA Handbook.  Its not a primer or cookbook.  The Webster's 
definition is "concise manual or reference book providing specific 
information or instruction about a subject or place".  Exactly what this is.

2. Status of document - should we discuss where QAH came from.
Yes, but briefly.  It belongs in SoTD. Something like:
"The QAH is the synthesis of the QAWG's previous work on a QA Framework 
series of documents   specifically, the QAF: Introduction and Operational 
Guidelines.  It takes the 'best of' from these documents and presents it in 
a simpler, clearer, friendlier manner. The two draft QAF documents have 
since been deprecated."

3. Other QA Framework resource
Suggest changing to make it less specific, we don't have a chicken-egg 
problem with the SpecLite and TestLite progression.  Suggest:
"Editors, test builders... about their roles in the other QA 
deliverables.  (linking QA deliverables to our list of deliverables)."
This will keep it general and can encompass other deliverables as well - 
e.g., if we create white paper on DoV.

4. Conformance
Do we really need this section.  I suggest removing it.  It adds nothing 
and may set a bad precedent.  Since this is a Handbook, we don't violate 
our own rule of having a conformance section in every specification.

5. Early planning and commitment - What does this mean.
Don't need the 'In theory.."  Lets jst stick with the "in practice" stuff.

All for now.

>[1] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2004/04/QA-handbook.html
Received on Tuesday, 13 April 2004 11:07:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:14:32 UTC