W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa@w3.org > April 2001

[www-qa] After the Workshop, still plenty of options to consider

From: <David_Marston@lotus.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 17:01:27 -0400
To: www-qa@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF2A1EBEBD.EAA28756-ON85256A26.0070DB51@lotus.com>
At the Workshop, I made some remarks about "floor expectations" for the
Working Groups (WGs) in the future. We talked about many levels at which
the floor could be set, but didn't aim for closure. Most likely, we'll
have a rather low floor overall, then some WGs may set their goals higher.
(This analysis is directed at WGs that are working on a substantive
specification that is on track to become a Recommendation.) For your
edification, here are all the levels I heard about, arranged in
more-or-less increasing order of rigor or workload:

0. Past practice: no firm requirement to address quality.
1. WG charter required to say something about QA plans, but could say
   any of the following.
2. WG promises to think about testability when writing their documents.
3. WG makes an effort to have QA expertise among their membership.
4. Beyond a few normative examples, WG aims to have numerous normative
   cases in the body of the Rec.
5. WG requires that a test suite, not necessarily complete and thorough,
   exist somewhere before they go to Rec.
6. WG requires that they review and fully approve a test suite, not
   necessarily complete and thorough, before they go to Rec.
7. WG commits to reviewing test cases on a continuing basis, including
   after going to Rec.
8. WG will attempt to generate a complete catalog of test cases before
   going to Rec.
9. WG insists on a complete catalog and partial implementation of a test
   suite before going to Rec.
10. WG insists on a test suite, not necessarily complete and thorough,
    and provides an official test harness, before going to Rec.
11. WG commits to writing test cases themselves and delivers a test
    harness and suite at some point.
12. WG insists on a complete test suite before going to Rec, and
    empowers W3C Team or endorsed Lab to operate a testing service.

Obviously, several kinds of mix-and-match are possible from the above
ideas. Approval of test cases is a WG responsibility, but other tasks
could be done outside the WG, and test cases could have mixed origin.
Is the above a good structure for discussing WG expectations?
.................David Marston
Received on Friday, 6 April 2001 17:02:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 12:13:56 GMT