W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa@w3.org > August 2002

Re: FYI : a new draft of "QA Framework - Specifications Guidelines" published

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 08:49:54 -0600
Message-Id: <>
To: www-qa@w3.org

QA Interest Group,

In addition to the specific issues that Olivier has highlighted (thanks for 
that), on behalf of the SpecGL (Specification Guidelines) editors I'd like 
to also indicate our keen desire to hear from you about the fundamental 
changes to the SpecGL.  These resulted from comments and discussion, on 
this list, about the first published version.

 From the current SpecGL Status section [0],

this version has focused on a complete reorganization and restructuring of 
the guidelines of Theme 1, Conformance Content. Old Guidelines 1 - 11 are 
restructured into 13 new guidelines, organized around a central concept of 
specification "dimensions of variability" (DoV). The QAWG has done this 
with the specific goal of presenting it to the W3C, to solicit feedback on:

            1.is this a useful organization that QAWG should pursue, 
develop, and refine?
            2.are there dimensions that we can eliminate, or major 
dimensions that we have missed (and that can't be fit into an existing
            3.can we start to make and integrate judgements about goodness 
and badness within particular dimensions or combinations of

About #3, in this version the QAWG has included checkpoints that require 
explanation and justification of the use of DoVs within 
a      specification, and has warned of the dangers of excessive 
variability, but has generally avoided specific value judgements. The QAWG 
has debated and has a currently active issue about whether it is possible 
to provide some sort of quantitative constraints on variability (e.g., 
maximum number of DoV, or a computed "variability index", etc.)


[0] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-qaframe-spec-20020826/#status

At 04:27 PM 8/28/02 +0900, Olivier Thereaux wrote:

>QA Interest Group,
>Monday (august 26th) the QA working Group has published a new draft of
>"QA Framework: Specification Guidelines"
>Latest version :
>This version:
>Reviewing the work of the QAWG is one of the primary tasks of this
>interest group, so I encourage you to go read/review this draft. Early
>review will be a crucial factor in the quality of this QA framework.
>May I draw attention on "issues" for this draft:
>In addition to feedback about the overall direction and organization,
>there are specific issues about which the QAWG desires feedback. The
>most persistent issues involve the relationships amongst the ways of
>dividing or grouping the technology -- profiles, modules, levels -- and
>whether there are relationships that are better (should be encouraged)
>and ones that are worse (should be discouraged). Some specific issues
>are flagged in the text, and may also be found in the QAWG Issues
>List[1], specifically atomicity of modules[2], levels minimality[3],
>modules-levels[4], levels-profiles[5], legacy specifications[6]. (Issues
>and editor notes are flagged in the text with "@@".)
>[1] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/qawg-issues-html
>[2] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/qawg-issues-html#x73
>[3] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/qawg-issues-html#x74
>[4] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/qawg-issues-html#x75
>[5] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/qawg-issues-html#x76
>[6] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/qawg-issues-html#x77
>Please send reviews to this list <www-qa@w3.org>
>Thanks. olivier.
>Olivier Thereaux - W3C
>http://www.w3.org/People/olivier | http://yoda.zoy.org
Received on Thursday, 29 August 2002 10:49:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:40:29 UTC