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

Re: Framework documents nature

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 10:01:03 -0700
Message-Id: <>
To: Mark Skall <mark.skall@nist.gov>
Cc: "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>, www-qa@w3.org
At 10:11 AM 1/8/02 -0500, Mark Skall wrote:
>At 08:33 AM 1/8/02 +0100, Daniel Dardailler wrote:
>> > Coming from a conformance background, I'm still disturbed by providing
>> > recommendations rather than requirements when the implications of not
>> > following our processes could have a catastrophic impact on
>> > interoperability and the quality of implementations.  If we believe 
>> what we
>> > say about the importance of our activity, and we don't require many of the
>> > things we're asking for, then, by our own admission, we are inviting 
>> disaster.
>>I think we should have the same approach as for the WAI guidelines
>>(Lynne seems to agree with me here): our QA framework specifies
>>requirements, with various level of importance (MUST, SHOULD, MAY, P1,
>>P2, A, AA, etc), and someone else decides what to do with them.
>>This someone else can be the W3C Advisory Board stating that all WGs
>>must comply with the QA Framework Spec Guidelines to level AA, or with
>>the QA Framework Process Guidelines level A.
>I agree.  The WAI guidelines are an excellent model.  It seemed to me 
>that, based on our discussions so far, we were going to fall WAI (pardon 
>the pun) short of that.

Could you be more specific?  It is my belief that QA intends to follow the 
WAI model as closely as possible, deviating only when it is sensible to do 
so (Ian pointed out a couple of possible such instances).  If we are 
missing the mark (pardon the pun), it would help to have details so that we 
can adjust our aim.

I have also been under the impression, since Brussels, that our approach to 
hard requirements (e.g., Process Document modifications) is as Daniel said 
above, "...and someone else decides what to do with them."

>My main point is that we need to document the issue, have a discussion and 
>come to a resolution.  I just wanted to make sure that we have a cohesive 
>strategy that is consistent with how we see our documents being used.

Per previous message, it is partially dealt with in Issue #16, which was 
discussed at Brussels and more or less closed.

But perhaps Issue#16 is too narrowly stated to capture your concern.  In 
that case, would you mind suggesting modifications to the wording of #16 
that would accurately express your concern?  Then we can reopen it for 
further discussion and a definitive closure.

Note also that this is affected by Issue#39, 
http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/qawg-issues-html.html#x39, SHALL, SHOULD, MAY 
usage.  Because our approach might be to carry the priority in the 
conformance keywords.  (This is tagged as "editorial", but it really is 
substantive -- what is the normative force and priority of each checkpoint).


Received on Tuesday, 8 January 2002 12:01:00 UTC

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