- From: by way of the Lastcall Form <cevans@sonicsoftware.com>
- Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 02:50 +0900
- To: www-qa@w3.org
Here is a last call comment from Colleen Evans (cevans@sonicsoftware.com) on QA Framework : Introduction received by the LC form system. Submitted on behalf of: XML Protocol WG Comment type: Editorial The comment applies to: "General: miscellaneous & other" Comment title: Several comments on various parts of Introduction Comment: [Entered into form by LH. Some are significant editorial, but all are classified as "Editorial" because there are no conformance implications or suggestions for major document reorganization.] 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?). 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 covered. 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? Editorial 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 sentence Proposed resolution : ]] -- This comment was submitted through the lastCall form system, designed by Martin Duerst and Adapted for the QAWG by Olivier Thereaux.
Received on Saturday, 15 March 2003 12:50:39 UTC