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

Re: "Variability in Specifications" WG draft

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 08:56:49 -0600
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20040823084459.0247d7f8@localhost>
To: Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org

Overall, very good, and I think mostly suitable for a fpwd.

Editorial Notes:

** I would change the list of "seven DoV" to numbered, instead of bullet.

** I notice that the glossary of SpecLite does not contain definitions for 
profiles, modules, etc.

** "Specification Category" -- this is under-specified.  I.e., it is 
difficult to understand both the explanations of the different categories 
(they each need at least a sentence of definition/discussion), and how this 
is critical to variability analysis.  I myself would have difficulty 
writing a Spec. Cat. analysis based on this.  We should develop the section 
better, or remove it.  For now, maybe "green flag" it to indicate that we 
think it needs attention.

All for now,
-Lofton.


At 07:00 PM 8/20/2004 +0200, you wrote:
>Hello QA WG,
>
>I've posted a first WG version of "Variability in Specifications" for
>your review:
>http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2004/08/qaframe-spec-advanced-20040830 (linked
>from the WG home page)
>
>While a thorough review of its contents from everybody would be most
>appreciated, at least a detailed review of the "newest" parts of the
>documents is needed:
>- the abstract and status
>- the introduction
>
>The sections 2, 3 and 4 are mostly the same as the section "Concepts" in
>the CR version of SpecGL, although I re-arranged some of its subparts
>and tried to fix some references that didn't make sense out of SpecGL
>context.
>
>Comments on bad language, broken sentences, non-understandable
>references are asked in priority, but I'll try to handle requests for
>enhancements as much as possible too; we need a stable document by
>Wednesday EOB at the latest if we want to have enough time to request
>permission for publication (as required by the transition requests) and
>the lasts pubrules adjustments that may be needed.
>
>I also would like formal agreement by the WG to publish the document
>minuted in our upcoming meeting on Monday - sorry for the short notice.
>
>Dom
>--
>Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/
>W3C/ERCIM
>mailto:dom@w3.org
Received on Monday, 23 August 2004 14:56:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:18 GMT