W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > January 2002

Framework Document: Introduction

From: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 10:20:34 -0500
Message-Id: <>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
Comments on the Framework: Introduction

1. Section 1.1 Introduction
1a) The first sentence in the Abstract “…framework for building conformance 
test suites and tools…”  This is a very limiting statement.  Is this true, 
that is, the Framework documents goal is to help people build test suites 
and tools?  Isn't it broader than that  the incorporation of quality 
practices in the development of specifications and testing suites and tools.

1b) This Framework document should not be about the Quality Assurance 
Activity.  This is what is implied by having the second sentence, 
“…introductory, roadmap, … for the Quality Assurance Activity…”  This 
Framework document should be about the family of framework 
documents  providing the introductory, roadmap, and orientation information 
for navigating the Framework family of documents.  The paragraph in Section 
1.4, “As an integral part of the working modes of the WGs, QA is ideally a 
…” has a nice statement regarding the Framework as a collection of 
best-practice principles and guidelines.  This type of information would be 
helpful in section 1.1 rather than the current focus of the Framework 
family as “for planning and building conformance test materials”

2.      Section 1.4, paragraph “As one of the principal resources and 
deliverables of …”
2a) Remove the beginning of this sentence and start with “This Framework 
document family should provide…”  Also, broaden the scope, by changing the 
“undertaking test suite projects” to quality assurance projects”.  Not 
everything will result in a test suite  e.g., improving the specification 
by including a conformance clause.

2b) Add to the bullet list something like, “to encourage the employment of 
quality practices in the development of the specifications from their 
inception through their deployment.

3.      Remove Section 2.1 through 2.8.  Combine Section 2.9 and 2.10 and 
move it into Section 3 (perhaps a new 3.6  Resources).  This relays to the 
reader that they aren't totally on their own in trying to implement the 
‘wisdom’ of these framework documents, that the QA Activity will be 
developing or pointing to tools/templates and also serving as consultants.

4.      Section 4.1.3
This is helpful.
Under All WG members, last sentence “advancement of the WG’s functional 
specifications to Recommendation”.  Are all W3C specifications considered 
functional?   What about WAI and I18N?   Can we remove the ‘functional’?

respectfully submitted
Received on Monday, 7 January 2002 10:18:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:43:29 UTC