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

Re: [ISSUE] Integrate editorial decisions from June F2F

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 19:04:49 -0400
Message-Id: <A20AFADA-10D9-11D9-AF97-000A95718F82@w3.org>
To: 'www-qa-wg@w3.org' <www-qa-wg@w3.org>
Thanks Dom for the clarification I will open new issues inherited from 
this one

	http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2004/09/qaspec-issues#no-10
	and detail this one.

Le 27 sept. 2004, ŗ 11:35, Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux a ťcrit :
> Le mar 21/09/2004 ŗ 11:15, Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux a ťcrit :
>> Glancing quickly through
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2004Jun/0044.html and
>> comparing it with http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-qaframe-spec-20040830/ 
>> ,
>> it appears that most of the decisions we took wrt editorial comments 
>> for
>> SpecGL haven't been implemented in the text yet; so, one of the issues
>> that needs to be solved before going to last call is to actually
>> implement them.
>
> Karl mentioned during today teleconf that he couldn't spot what
> decisions haven't been incorporated; here are a few examples:
>
> "Decision: remove the 'boilerplate' RFC keywords section (and also from
> the normative section)"
> but we still have it at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-qaframe-spec-20040830/#structure

In this message[1], we were discussing about a related issue. And I 
found out, we were not using them, so I left them when Lofton agreed 
that it was not a problem. I will remove them in the next version.
[1]http://www.w3.org/mid/B4CB64DB-EFC4-11D8-B91C-000A95718F82@w3.org


> "* Text inside "good practice" sections should make sense "out of
> context" (if extracted into a separate list, for example)"
> There a a few good practices that I think aren't very clear when
> extracted, e.g.
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-qaframe-spec-20040830/#need-option-gp
> "Determine the need for each option. Make sure there is a real need for
> the option." (for instance, using "optional feature" instead of 
> "option"
> would help)

Ok I will send a specific email for this issue.

> """A1: "Why care" justifications sometimes don't address benefits in
> terms that "appeal to" the spec author. Show how their self-interest
> will be served by following our recommendations - to say "you will meet
> our recommendations" is insufficient."""

I would say to that the why care is not about the benefits of the spec 
author. The benefit of the spec author can occur sometimes, but it's 
not necessary an obligation. Sometimes, it will benefit the technology, 
the user, the implementer.
Though the exercise is not useless, and it will be good to review all 
"Why Care".

A very quick and little guide to review the "Why Care?":

	"""
	When your review "Why Care?", think about the benefits for:
		- the technology
		- the spec author
		- the end users of products
  		- the implementers
	"""

I'll add the issue and we need a person for this work.

> I haven't made a thorough review of all the editorial decisions; these
> ones are the ones I had noticed when I sent my original message.

I'll check if I find more. :)


-- 
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager
*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***

Received on Tuesday, 28 September 2004 00:34:57 GMT

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