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

Re: Framework Document: Introduction

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 17:00:11 -0700
Message-Id: <>
To: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org

Thanks for your careful reading and comments.  Replies (wearing editor's 
hat) in-line ...

At 10:20 AM 1/7/02 -0500, Lynne Rosenthal wrote:
>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.

Yes.  Olivier observed the same.  Will change per suggestions.

>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…”

That is now agreed.

>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 


>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.

Agreed that we're going to remove detailed resource descriptions.  As far 
as the 2.9/2.10 suggestions, I'd like to hear others' thoughts,
per my previous message.

An alternative option might be to collapse 2.1 - 2.8 into a new 2.1, which 
is a reference to the (anticipated) Web site document where such stuff will 
be found, plus a brief bullet list prefaced by "...resources, for example:" 
(with no descriptions).  2.9 - 2.10 could then become 2.2 and 2.3, and the 
whole thing (very short ch.2) could convey your suggested "...not on your 
own..." perspective.  (But I confess, I have trouble distinguishing the 
2.1-8 resources from the 2.9-10 resources, except that the latter will be 
the subject of treatment in other Framework parts).

Finally -- 2.4 taxonomy -- we have a new issue from 1/3/02 telcon, about 
whether it ought to be integrated into the Intro document (or some other 
framework document), or just left as a separate resource on the Web site.

>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’?

Olivier suggested that "Technical Reports (@@TR@@)" could replace most 
occurrences of "specifications".  I think that would work here.

Thanks again,
Received on Monday, 7 January 2002 19:00:15 UTC

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