- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2002 20:25:34 -0700
- To: "Olivier Thereaux" <ot@w3.org>, www-qa-wg@w3.org
Olivier, Thanks again for your comments. Here are some replies... At 12:25 PM 1/3/2002 +0900, Olivier Thereaux wrote: >[...]Unfortunately, I'm >more or less offline these days, so this is a (focused) comment on the >2dec/5dec version of part 1 and 2, and I didn't even have time for a >deep review... > > >********************* >QAFW 1 - intro - WD2dec2001 >********************* > >-header : "working draft" or "draft note" ? Daniel will finally sort this out, per 1/3 telcon action item. >-status: QAA for QA Activity is quite new to me. I always saw QA for the >activity. I'll change it. >-status: when giving a pointer or inviting people to comment on a public >list, please be extremely careful, give warnings that this is a public >list, that many people will be able to read the message, that the >message will be publicly archived on our web, etc. I've put such a >disclaimer on the IG (?) page. Okay, we'll put this into the next drafts. >-1.1 "for building conformance test suites and tools". I wonder if this >is the real, full scope of this document. I think I'd rather say this is >a framework for "adding QA to your work", or something like this. This is a good point. I'll work on it in the next draft. >Might >be too vague, I admit it, but limiting the goal to test suites and >conformance (and later in the document, to test suites only) seems too >limited to me. "test suites" usage needs to be reviewed. It's a convenient handle, but we use it too much, including places where it is too narrow. >-1.1 same comment, later, there is a lack of consistency in the >goals/scope : "conformance materials" "conformance test materials" "test >suites". Right, we'll try to add consistency in next versions. >-1.2 "specifications (RECs)" sounds strange. I'd rather we use >"technical reports (TRs)",and point to /TR I agree, thanks for the better wording. >-1.3 it could be a good ting to add something about the QA process in >general, why "internal, in-process" QA done by the WG is the best thing >(opposed to horizontal review, post-process). I think this might have been improved in the 1/2/02 drafts. Please have a look and tell me what you think. >-2.1 same as above. please insert disclaimer about lists here (at >least). Do you mean about them being publicly archived? >A pointer to W3C mailing-list policy would not be a lucury, >either. (http://www.w3.org/Mail and /Mail/Spam) Okay. >-2.1 the qa-wg list is not empty any more :) clarification about the >separation would be nice Right, the 1/2/02 drafts changed this. >-2.2 the links are correct, but not the text. it's /QA/WG and /QA/IG, >not /QA/QAWG and /QA/QAIG Thanks, will fix. >-2.2 Is it a good thing to link member-only pages (/Group) from a public >document? Good point. >-2.9 something about horizontal review. can be asked for, but in >advance, and in-process consultancy is prefered, because of limited >resources. "horizontal review"? (1/2/03 drafts, both Intro and Procs&Ops, have more content here. Please let us know what you think). >-4.2 it's not in the scope of this document to do this in details, but >adding the TAG in the list, and possibly clarifying QA and TAG roles >would be good. Good point, to add TAG to the list. See later email dialog on Issue #22 -- it has gotten into the relationship to the "horizontal WGs" in more depth. I'll turn the rest over to Kirill, but note -- we intend to fix things like the no-markup acronyms before going to /TR. Thanks, -Lofton. (Intro editor) >********************* >QAFW 2 - op gl - WD5dec2001 >********************* > >-header : "working draft" or "draft note" > >-status : pointer to the list > >1: s/ames/aims/ > >2.4.4: s/must to sort out/must sort out/ > >whole document : a lot of acronyms and abbreviations, I know it can be >painful, but i'd recommend the use of the appropriate markup for those. >On a personal level, I hate it when I hear about, say "MoUs" or "RAND", >ans learn what tat thing is a week later. On a QA level, since one of >the goals of the activity is to improve our specifications, there are >good writing practices we should encourage, and, of course, enforce in >our own work. Hence simplicity, clarity, and rich markup. > > > >******************** > > >kindest regards, happy new year to all of you, and talk to you at the >telcon today. > >-- >Olivier
Received on Sunday, 6 January 2002 22:27:41 UTC