W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa@w3.org > March 2003

Comments on Last Call WD QA Framework: Introduction

From: Colleen Evans <cevans@sonicsoftware.com>
Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2003 21:46:35 -0700
To: www-qa@w3.org
Cc: "w3c-xml-protocol-wg@w3.org" <w3c-xml-protocol-wg@w3.org>
Message-id: <3E6C18AB.E7FAA0D4@sonicsoftware.com>

The XML Protocol WG has asked me to submit review comments on the
QA Framework:  Introduction [1] on behalf of the group.

Review comments:
In general it provides useful guidance on how to use the Framework,
defining audience and WG activity applicability for each document.

Is this a Working Draft or Last Call Working Draft?  Title indicates
the former.

Interspersed usage of the terms 'document', 'guideline', and
'specification' to describe the QA Framework documents could
be confusing.  E.g., paragraph 4 of Status:  "... It is
anticipated that this specification will eventually
progress, along with its Operational Guidelines and
Specification Guidelines companions, to Candidate
Recommendation (CR) and beyond. The timing of progression of
this specification will be determined by the progression of
the companion guidelines documents."  Similarly, 'TR',
'standard', 'specification', and 'recommendation' are used
interchangeably to describe the output of WGs.

Section 1.3, first sentence:  "The last underscores a key
reality of improved quality practices associated with W3C
technical reports".  Not clear what 'the last' is (previous

Section 1.4, paragraph 3, first sentence incomplete?  "While
some might perceive QA projects as a regrettable drain on WG
resources, there is ample experience, both within W3C as
well as other standards venues, that shows significant
improvement to the products of the WGs."

Sections 1.3 (paragraph 1) and 1.4 (paragraphs 2 and 3)
contain general justification arguments for QA efforts in
WGs - may be more appropriate content for Section 1.2.

Section 3.1 Application Domain - does this belong in Section
3 (Structure and content of Framework documents)? Seems more
like Section 1 (Overview) content where target audience is

Sections 3.5.2 - 3.5.5 describe each document - information
on content, audience, and objective.  It may help
readability to use a consistent order for presenting this
information across sections.

Section 3.5.4  Single item bullet list?

Section 4.1.3  Useful breakout of document relevance by role
within a WG.

Section 4.2 Provides a good life cycle view of the
relationship between Framework documents and WG activities.
A table summary might be useful as well.

Section 4.1.3 "WG-TS moderator" -  Section 4.2.2 "test
materials (QA) moderator". Same role?

Section 4.2.3, paragraph 4, second sentence is unclear:
"Normally, this should not be considered as a good time to
bring a specification for 'Specification Guidelines'
conformance, as the latter could significantly disrupt and
restructure the specification.".  Is 'the latter' referring
to bringing a spec to specification guidelines conformance,
or something in a previous sentence?

Section 4.2.5.  Intra-WG build of test materials calls for
an acceptance procedure for the individual bits.  Import and
assemble only call for quality assessment and assessment
criteria - is an acceptance procedure required / implied?

Usage of Working Group vs. WG inconsistent throughout

Inconsistent bullet list punctuation (';' vs. ',' vs.
nothing at line end, etc.)

Section 1.2, paragraph 1  "...." at end of first sentence

Section 4.2.5, paragraph 2 "? -- as " in middle of second

Colleen (on behalf of the XML Protocol WG)

[1] 10 Feb 2003:
Received on Sunday, 9 March 2003 23:44:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:40:31 UTC