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

LC comment for Intro : 'Several comments on various parts of Introduction'

From: by way of the Lastcall Form <cevans@sonicsoftware.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 02:50 +0900
To: www-qa@w3.org
Message-Id: <20030315175036.BBC84948@toro.w3.mag.keio.ac.jp>

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 GMT

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