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

Re: QA Framework documents Available for Review

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2002 21:16:10 -0700
Message-Id: <>
To: "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>
Cc: www-qa@w3.org

I'll reply separately about your most substantive issue -- the fate of 
Chapter 2 of "Framework: Introduction".  Otherwise, thanks for your 
comments, which I'll incorporate into the next draft.  A couple of comments 

At 06:06 PM 1/4/2002 -0500, Ian B. Jacobs wrote:
>1) Status section: Delete the next to last para about
>    checkpoints/guidelines; this is not really status
>    information about the Introduction and this material
>    is repeated in chapter 3.
>2) 1.1 Introduction: The list of documents in the paragraph
>    with "The document family covers:..." and the bulleted
>    list after that should be combined (in a more descriptive
>    bulleted list).
>3) 3.5.2 Introduction: If chapter 2 is moved to the Web, this
>    needs to be updated.
>4) I liked section 4.1.3: Who will find which documents important.
>    The list is kind of long, and it may be interesting to have
>    the mapping in the other direction: For a given chapter/document,
>    who should read it.

We have done a little bit of this in section 3.5, Roadmap.  But not down to 
the "chapter" level.  We'll take a look at it.

You comment brings up a lurking problem that has been in the back of my 
mind (and I haven't yet put it into the Issues List) -- it is impossible to 
link now from Intro to the chapters in any parts other than Procs&Ops, as 
they don't exist.  So ... how do we progress this family?  Do these early 
parts progress to FPWD, or maybe even SPWD or TPWD, and then "wait" for the 
other parts (Spec Guidelines, Tech Guidelines, ..) to catch up?  So that 
they all "finish" (whatever that means!) at the same time?

>5) I haven't read the operational guidelines yet, but I suspect
>    4.2 might be more appropriate there than in the intro to the
>    framework.

Interesting thought.  I think this is something we could do later (after 
FPWD) if it looks like a good idea -- should be come clearer as the 
documents solidify some.

>I look forward to following and learning from this work!

Thanks again for your comments.  ("Following" is too modest, as we are 
borrowing heavily from your work in WAI, in the guidelines/checkpoints style.)


Lofton Henderson
1919 Fourteenth St., #604
Boulder, CO   80302

Phone:  303-449-8728
Email:  lofton@rockynet.com
Received on Sunday, 6 January 2002 23:18:15 UTC

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