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

Re: Announcing "SpecLite"

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 12:19:12 -0600
Message-Id: <>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: www-qa@w3.org

At 07:00 PM 6/11/2004 +0100, Jeremy Carroll wrote:

>Lofton Henderson wrote:
>>[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-qaframe-spec-20040602/
>Here is a first quick informal review of the "principles" and "good 
>practice"; unfortunately I have not reviewed much of the other text. 
>Please do not treat any of these comments formally.

Thanks for your time and effort!  It will be a big help for us to have this 
feedback at pending F2F.

>I note that some of the text has been a bit rushed, presumably to get it 
>out before your F2F,

Yes, "a bit rushed" is accurate.  We very much wanted to get some early 
initial feedback on the overall direction, tone, style, and orientation of 
"SpecLite", as it is a big divergence from previous CR 
SpecGL.  Accordingly, some sections are mostly placeholders now, while 
others are somewhat more fully developed.

>so maybe I should postpone a more detailed review until next publication. 
>Please advise.

(My own opinion, not speaking for QAWG...)  That is a very reasonable 
approach.  I took a quick glance at your comments, and I think they will be 
very helpful (I'm particularly glad that you gave your opinions on what 
conformance model SpecLite ought to have for itself).

It is our current intention to publish SpecLite again as soon after F2F as 
we can get the work done.  (Sometime this summer, hopefully.)  The next 
version should be complete in substance, and more polished and consistent.


>I found the principles and good practices appropriate.
>I would advocate that WGs working on Rec track documents that I am
>involved with should follow the QA Spec Guidelines when it reaches Rec
>(assuming it ends up as a more polished version of this WD).
>Once again I congratulate the QAWG on the rapid work done since the tech
>I started looking at the principles after having read the Introduction,
>when I decided that given the short time given before your f2f it would
>be best to concentrate on the normative content (the principles). I also
>found that typographically and also in content that the Good Practices
>were similar and fell naturally into such a top-level review.
>Comments on wording of some principles.
>A.2 I have a weak pref for this principle to be a GP
>B.1 first GP suggest delete "Don't specify requirements"
>a) it is not clear what this means
>b) if it adds anything perhaps add to descriptive text under the GP
>D.2 first GP suggest delete "Determine the need for each option" - the
>GP is conveyed by the second sentence in the box
>D.2 third GP "Address" unclear, perhaps replace with "Adequately consider"
>I note an editorial inconsistency in the style of the Ps and GPs in this 
>section from the earlier ones. Personally, I prefer the simple short 
>imperatives in the earlier sections, with detailed comment below. I 
>believe the document would benefit from consistency.
>e.g. D3 Principle: first sentence only, move rest below
>      D3 GP: ditto
>D3 thanks for including text about OWL and RDF
>D3 last GP: ditto above
>D4 same comment on editorial consistency, and on the principles and first GP.
>E - thank you for including this section -
>again with the first GP suggest shortening it to maybe the second 
>sentence: "Do a systematic and thorough review"
>It may be helpful to include links to useful tools for ensuring quality of 
>this kind, such as linking to the pubrules page or the prodspec mailing 
>list page; also the XML format that many editors use could be mentioned 
>here. (Concept: if you use tried-and-tested tools, and don't push the 
>process boundaries too much, you get more automated support for this sort 
>of quality control - e.g. the first example could indicate that because 
>the WG did not have all their deliverable documents in TR space, some of 
>the W3C tools for checking process quality were not adequately usable)
>By-the-way, this section goes along way to addressing my earlier comment 
>on the QAH, as to whether this is a Quality framework, or merely a test 
>framework - I suspect a sentence or two (in QAH?) acknowledging further 
>W3C 'quality' issues such as WAI and I18N, but noting that they are 
>currently out of scope, and handing off to appropriate pages - would cover 
>all the ground.
>On the GP write sample code or tests, I could write up the RDF Core 
>experience for you.
>Acknowledgements - thanks for mentioning me. (The alphabet flatters me by 
>putting me inappropriately first).
>I note that you haven't yet decided on how to do conformance.
>Here's my 2 cents.
>1) delete the ref to RFC 2119 and don't use those keywords. The curent 
>short imperatives are fine; and 2119 requires that you have some sense of 
>'interoperability' that you are trying to preserve. If 2119 had been 
>written by someone following your spec guidelines, then the scope section 
>would, I think, been such as to not place this sort of document in scope.
>2) I think the GPs should be normative as well as the Ps. roughly the Ps 
>correspond to MUST force, and the GPs correspond to SHOULD force (I 
>realise that SHOULD is unpopular with some of you; so maybe informative 
>will be your call)
>3) Provide an ICS which lists the Ps and GPs and allows the spec edtor to 
>drop URLs in to a form.
>   For the Ps the only legal values are N/A or a URL with frag ID 
> identifying that part of the spec that addresses that P
>   For the GPs there is a further legal value of a WG e-mail msg providing 
> the rationale for not addressing that GP (or maybe a minute from a WG 
> meeting deciding not to address a GP)
>Then to conform means that you have correctly filled out an ICS. Every P 
>has been addressed; every GP has been considered. I suppose in part it 
>depends on number of Ps and GPs - any conformance process needs to be 
>light enough that WGs and editors feel they get bang for buck for the work 
>they put in.
>Here are a few typos - just ones I saw:
>"(a good place" without closing )
>"explanations or extract[s]" (i.e. missing "s")
>"[@@]explain what is normative"
>section D.3 longish bullet list "extension[s]" many times
>Car[r]oll (the hairdresser today had me down as Carol, so you did better)
>C.1 foo-conformant ???
>"non exhaustive" hyphenate?
>recommendations => Recommendations
>One last comment: was there text addressing the multi-document 
>specification issue - i.e. one principle might be addressed in one 
>document in a set, another in another. It need only be a sentence or two. 
>[Apologies if it's there and I've missed it]
>Have a good f2f
Received on Saturday, 12 June 2004 14:19:13 UTC

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