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

LC-110 Team comments

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Thu, 08 May 2003 05:29:58 -0600
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030508034856.02eb18b0@rockynet.com>
To: www-qa@w3.org

ref.  http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/lc-issues#x110

Here are proposals for disposition of the Team comments.  Although no 
formal response is required, we have agreed to have a look at them.

Most comments look straightforward or already resolved.  There are two that 
might need a little attention:  LC-110.4, LC-110.7


LC-110.1
=====
QA is very important, and the QA WG has the right goals. [No issue.]

LC-110.2
=====
There were a lot of discussions regarding the writing style we adopted for 
the framework, namely the fact that we use RFC keywords in conformance 
requirements. Some people thought it was too "aggressive", other felt it 
was the right thing to do.

Proposal.  No change.  (We have discussed and resolved this in SpecGL 
context.  Should OpsGL be any different?).

LC-110.3
=====
[OpsGL only] The table in OpsGL GL 1 caused much confusion and was deemed 
as not-understandable, which I think we already more or less agree with.

Proposal.  We agree.  We have fixed it in our resolution of the 
commitment-table issue group.

LC-110.4
=====
The intents of the priorities/degrees is not always clear. Proposal [DH]: 
we should probably emphasize somewhere that the minimal recommended degree 
is to be AA conformant (or that is the intention of the WG to request it to 
be the lowest level for work in W3C)

Discussion.  AA is to be the minimum?  I thought that A was our goal.  I 
note that we did set our CR criteria as:  for each of the P1 & P2 
checkpoints (i.e. the set required for AA), find two <things> that conform 
to XxxGL.  But I thought that our goal for required WG conformance was at 
least A-conforming.  (This is the subject of QAWG issues #16 and #71, but 
the level is not specified there.)

Proposal.  Clarify in OpsGL as proposed.  Clarify in QAWG first, the A/AA 
ambiguity.

LC-110.5
=====
Generally speaking, the distinction between GL and ExTech was not always 
clear. Proposal [DH]: we probably need to rework the introductory sections 
to clarify that.

Proposal.  Agreed.

LC-110.6
=====
The summarized view (ICS/Checklists) are not easy enough to find, and are 
not explicitly recommended enough. Proposal [DH]: again, that means some 
re-working of the introduction.

Proposal.  Agreed.

LC-110.7
=====
The introduction needs to be much more efficient to read. Proposal [DH?]: 
some kind of an executive summary rather than the long prose we currently have.

Discussion.  Some of the prose is there as a consequence of SpecGL 
compliance.  Some is there to clarify the contents of the document.  Some 
is "semi-normative" (e.g., Terminology).  In fact, numbers 110.5 and 110.6 
suggest to add *more* clarification to the Introduction.  It is not clear 
what could be removed, to implement the "...summary rather than long prose.."

Proposal.  Clarification from originators.  Could originators be more 
specific?  Do you mean "rather than", or do you mean to preface it with an 
exec summary?  If "rather than", could you please propose what bits of the 
intro should be eliminated?  Would you like to propose a "for example" 
executive summary that meets your proposal?
### end ###

-Lofton.
Received on Thursday, 8 May 2003 07:36:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 12:14:00 GMT