W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa@w3.org > June 2004

Re: Review of QAH

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 19:02:36 +0100
Message-ID: <40C9F3BC.10202@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: www-qa@w3.org

Two variations on my comments

Jeremy Carroll wrote:

> * Links to latest version of QA Introduction and QA Ops Guidelines
> (sorry I have not checked this, unfortunately I am offline as I
> am writing this up, and cannot check immediately).
> I suggest the latest version links of QA Intro and QA Ops should
> either point to QAH or to a dummy page indicating that they have
> been superseded by QAH. If this is already the case, sorry for
> having raised this in error.
comment withdrawn - already addressed

> 1.4 QAH Scope, last para
> In my view it would be better to be more upfront about
> the degree of emphasis on test and testability in the QAF,
> and note that WG's will need to balance this emphasis
> with other quality issues which are either only partially
> addressed or not addressed at all in the QAF, e.g. timeliness.
> (related to * comment on 6.1)
> * 6.1 WG-TS Moderator
> versus "WG's QA projects"
> Remaking one of my comments on the
> CR version of QAF, that it is really a test and testability
> framework and the name QA framework is unhelpfully broad.
> My prefered solution is to rename the QAF to be a
> "Test and Testability Framework".
> I suspect that the QAWG is unwilling to concede this.
> This issue is partially addressed in section 1.4 scope,
> and as I have already suggested could be made clearer there.
> In this section suggest
> s/WG's QA projects/WG's TM/
> Also not clear what TS in WG-TS participant or WG-TS moderator is
> meant to stand for. Maybe s/TS/TM/
Comment partially addressed by section E of QA Spec GL
(see further note in my partial review of that doc)
Received on Friday, 11 June 2004 14:11:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:40:35 UTC