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

QAH editing status

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 08:57:07 -0600
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20040718101030.02d4f100@rockynet.com>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org

Hi QAWG --

In anticipation that we are going to publish in a month or so, I have made 
a snapshot [1] of the QAH editors draft (and call it a WG draft).  The main 
motive is to give a basis for our appeal to Chairs & Staff to contribute 
examples, a draft of which appeal is at [2].  (I anticipate to finish and 
send it today.)

[1] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2004/07/QA-handbook-20040725
[2] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2004/07/QAH-ex-list

FYI, QAH editing status is:  most of the Santa Clara resolutions are done, 
and most of subsequent QAH discussion and issues (e.g., the AB commandments 
about license).

Here is a list of a few things that are incomplete and/or small 
issues.  Email discussion (or next telecon) welcome.

1.) Knock-on effects from TestGL decision:

The effects are potentially widespread:
** SoTD changes (see proposed),
** "Story 5: Test Development Processes",
** Section 1.5,
** Section 3.2 and 3.3
** QAF Roadmap (now separated from QAH, per S.C.)
** etc.

I'm reluctant to do extensive re-editing of all of these tie-ins, before 
the ultimate future of TestGL is determined.  Therefore I propose for the 
next publication (at least).

a.) Highlight the issue in the Status section, and maybe in Section 1.5 as 
well;
b.) In the "References" section, [QAF-TEST], explain about TestGL delay, 
point to Wiki material, etc.
c.) elsewhere in the body of QAH, leave the references to TestGL, but with 
the only link being to the [QAF-TEST] in References, revised as per #b.

2.) QAF-ROAD:
2a.) Is the new "QAF Roadmap" a Primer?  Usage Scenarios?  For now, it is 
titled "QA Framework Roadmap";
2b.) Should it be a WG Note (conforming to Process/pubrules)?  an informal 
QA document?
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2004Jun/0036.html

3.) Should QAPD be renamed TSPD (TS=test suite)?  (Editing suggestion from 
Lynne.)
This is part of a handful of related issues, including JC's '"test & 
testability" instead of "QA"', vague language like "QA deliverables", 
etc.  These are not yet completely sorted out.

(Btw, if we go strongly towards "TS" instead of "QA", should we rename the 
QAWG to TTWG (test & testability)?  QA Activity can probably retain "QA", 
because of the diverse quality-related stuff that happens within QAIG, 
evangelist, etc.)

4.) Drop the planned chronology diagram (see 1.6)?

5.) Ed nit:  Should "Chairs and Staff Contacts" be capitalized, or not?

All for now,
-Lofton.
Received on Monday, 26 July 2004 11:00:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:16 GMT