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

Comments on Last Call WD QA Framework: Specification Guidelines

From: Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:19:55 -0500
To: www-qa@w3.org
Cc: w3c-xml-protocol-wg@w3.org
Message-id: <0A3BF3F0-533E-11D7-91E9-0003937568DC@sun.com>

I recently reviewed the QA Framework: Specification Guidelines[1] on 
behalf of the XML Protocol WG. Here are my detailed comments:

Status
Despite being billed as a LC draft, there's no mention of this in the 
spec.

Section 1.1, second bullet
Second sentence implies that all checkpoints must be satisfied to 
comply with the guidelines whereas only priority 1 checkpoints are 
mandatory.

Section 2
Checkpoint 1.1 - rather wooly conformance requirements.

Checkpoint 1.2 - can use cases and examples be in a separate document 
from the main spec ?

Guideline 2, third para - typo 'as either or producers' remove 'or'

Checkpoint 2.1 - second conformance requirement refers to list of 
classes but its not clear which list it is referring to. If its the 
list under guideline 2 then that list is non-exhaustive so requiring 
people to use that list is somewhat limiting.

Checkpoint 2.3 - what is a category of object ? The same as a class of 
product ?

Checkpoint 2.4 - 'define their relationships and interaction with other 
dimensions of variability' this is a confusing checkpoint that is 
repeated in each successive guideline. It's really not clear exactly 
what is intended.

Checkpoint 3.1 - conformance requirements - only one section for this 
or are multiple OK ?

Checkpoint 4.4 - 'experience shows ... meets all the pertinent 
checkpoints of this document' -  what experience ? As this is not yet a 
recommendation this seems like a rather strong statement.

Guideline 5 - Modules are non-hierarchical - can modules have 
dependencies on other modules ? If so, isn't this a hierarchy ?

Checkpoint 7.1 - conformance requirements imply a single section for 
deprecated features - is it not OK to include deprecations where they 
occur without a summary section ?

Checkpoint 8.4 - conformance requirements not clear, what does 
'document the identified policies for handling discretionary choices' 
mean.

Guideline 9 - A very well thought out section IMO.

Checkpoint 14.1 - conformance requirements - is a separate document OK 
or does this have to be in the same doc as the rest of the spec.

Section 3.3 - amusing that this section doesn't meet checkpoint 14.1 
and therefore renders the document as only A-conforming to itself. 
Would be better if the document were AAA-conforming to itself IMO.

Section 3.4 - Example - not true, see above comment on 3.3.

Section 7 - date for LC WD is in the future (or at least it was when 
the doc was published).

Regards,
Marc (on behalf of the XML Protocol WG).

[1] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2003/01/qaframe-spec/

--
Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
Web Technologies and Standards, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Monday, 10 March 2003 16:20:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 12:13:59 GMT