- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 10:05:27 -0700
- To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
Hi QAWG, I have gone through the TAG comments. Here I index and summarize them. I also give my opinions. Some will probably (IMO) want at least a little WG discussion, even tho' we probably agree in principle with most of 'em (i.e., they will probably be pretty easy to resolve): 1, 2, 3, 5, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17 Some are (IMO) editorial or completely straightforward: 4, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15 Onward... Overall comment, requires no response http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005Mar/0002.html Praises document as good, easy to read, useful, etc. *TAG.1: positive statements http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005Mar/0015.html Suggests positive statements, "No deprecated features." (Applicable to stuff like deprecation, extension, profiling, etc.) [LH: I agree. This has been discussed before.] *TAG.2: workflow http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005Mar/0000.html Asserts that we mix specifications and process (workflow) -- they should be distinguished, and questions dealing with them "in the same proforma". [LH: No specifics given, I'm unsure.] *TAG.3: optionality of conformance http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005Mar/0017.html About putting "no conformance to this document" elsewhere than in a Conformance Clause, suggests template wording for that case. [LH: I think it should be recommended to be in a CC, not elsewhere. This has been discussed before.] TAG.4: TOC http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005Mar/0001.html Wants TOC to go down to level 3 (listing GPs and RQs). [LH: I agree, at least that they should be enumerated with links in or near the TOC.] *TAG.5: "then Level 1 too" http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005Mar/0016.html Questions 4th bullet of figure 3. [LH: I agree it's confusing and possibly wrong. What if Profile X placed restriction, 'foo-level="2"'? Does that even make sense? At least clarify the bullet to answer TAG questions.] TAG.6: URI and normative refs http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005Mar/0003.html a.) grammatical critique of language in Examples of GP2.3B [LH: agree] b.) suggests potentially more discussion in 3rd & 5th [LH: no opinion] TAG.7: normative refs, Unicode and XML http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005Mar/0004.html Suggests referencing Unicode and XML (1.0, 1.1, ...) as common examples. [LH: I agree.] TAG.8: warn implementors http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005Mar/0005.html Suggests improved language [editorial] and previews next. [LH: agree, editorial] *TAG.9: warn implementors (2nd) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005Mar/0006.html Asserts that "Implementors" are not the only ones who extend. [LH: I agree with the assertion.] *TAG.10: deprecated features http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005Mar/0007.html a.) asserts that even v1 can deprecate. [LH: unsure about this.] b.) if no deprecation, make positive statement "No deprecated features." [LH: I agree. See also TAG.1] TAG.11: define deprecated features http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005Mar/0008.html Suggests more precise rewording [editorial?]. [LH: I agree.] TAG.12: which of (editorial) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005Mar/0009.html [LH: yes, editorial.] *TAG.13: neither language nor protocol http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005Mar/0010.html Points out that we only prescribe error treatment for languages and protocols, suggests there is other eligible stuff. [LH: I agree.] *TAG.14: use your own examples http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005Mar/0011.html The story in Section 5 is about SpecGL CR, and should say so. [LH: IMO, yes, but as I discussed with Dom, the Story is partly fictionalized. I believe that not all of the problems were due to lack of quality review, but were conscious decisions of QAWG -- e.g., that ExTech could be maintained in WG space and developed more slowly. JC didn't agree. It's a good story, but if we take credit for it, then we ought to make it more accurate.] TAG.15: edition (editorial) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005Mar/0012.html [LH: yes, editorial.] *TAG.16: specgl-ics http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005Mar/0013.html The ICS should have not just y/n/na, but the possibility to link answers to tests and other stuff that supports the answer. [LH: I agree. This is the same as Ian Hickson's comment, bug #1041.] *TAG.17: conformance to self http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005Mar/0014.html He applied SpecGL ICS to SpecGL. It has some NO answers and should not. (Most failures are related to other issues in the TAG comments.) [LH: I agree.]
Received on Thursday, 3 March 2005 17:05:39 UTC