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

RE: new draft "Framework: Process & Operational Guidelines"

From: Kirill Gavrylyuk <kirillg@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 09:18:27 -0800
Message-ID: <B3F0DACD72892E4DB7E8296C6C9FC2F602B7FCCA@red-msg-03.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <danield@w3.org>, "Lofton Henderson" <lofton@rockynet.com>
Cc: <www-qa-wg@w3.org>, <ij@w3.org>
Thank you Daniel for thorough feedback, my comments inline:

> >    This document is a Working Draft, made available by the [18]W3C
> >    Quality Assurance (QA) Activity for discussion on the QA email 
> > list.
> a bit picky but it's "for discussion on the QAWG mailing list."
[KG] Agreed.
> >    All review comments against the previous version
> >    have been accepted and implemented, except as indicated in an
> >    associated [19]disposition of comments document. This 
> version still
> The disposition of comments actually lists a bunch of "taken" 
> comments, so it's unclear if it is not up-to-date or if the 
> description here is wrong.
[KG] I think Lofton answered this - I like to keep disposition of
comments list as full as possible, so if we missed your comment you can
notice it.

> >    This document is part of a family of QA Framework 
> documents designed
> >    to improve the quality of W3C specifications as well as their
> >    implementation by solidifying and extending current 
> quality practices
> >    within the W3C. The QA Framework documents are:
> >      * Introduction
> >      * Specification Guidelines
> >      * Process and Operational Guidelines (this document)
> >      * Technical Guidelines
> I suggest we use the same order as usual
[KG] will fix this

> >    Although not explicitly stated, the W3C Process Document 
> supports the
> >    development of conformance test materials.
> >     1. "[.] groups may produce technical reports, review the work of
> >        other groups, develop sample code or test suites, 
> etc." (sec. 3.)
> >     2. "W3C should make every effort to maintain its Recommendations
> >        (e.g., by tracking errata, providing test bed applications,
> >        helping to create test suites, etc.)" (sec4.)
> >     3. In an effort to meet these suggestions and address the
> >        implementation requirements of the Process Document, 
> some Working
> >        Groups have included the development of conformance 
> materials as
> >        part of their CR-exit and PR-entrance criteria 
> (e.g., SVG, UAAG,
> >        XSL-FO). This makes sense, since it is natural for 
> test suites and
> >        implementations to develop in parallel - each is a 
> help to the
> >        development of the other.
> I'd put some font emphasis on the "test" related words of the 
> above extracts, just to be clearer.
[KG] Agree, but I'd postpone this post FPWD

> >   1.2 Navigating through this document.
> I think this section should acknowledge the reuse of the WAI 
> model, so 
> that people can actually switch their mind to it, instead of 
> wondering 
> what's different but similar.
[KG] We can do that.
> >   1.3 Terminology
> Since the checkpoints define the requirement/normativeness 
> level, and they use priority instead of verbiage, one may 
> wonder why we say we're 
> going to use the RFC2119 model. The WAI guidelines do not 
> refer to it I think.
[KG] We do use them in Ch3, so let's leave them there. WAI model doesn't
forbid this.

> >    Checkpoint 1.1.Priority 1.In charters include section for test
> >    suites/tools plans. Plan to have at least a commitment 
> to "QA level three".
> The WAI style (sorry to always bring it up, but that's the 
> reference in the area) is to put the Priority level after the 
> checkpoint text, either in parenth or bracket, usually using 
> a different color scheme. See /tr/wcag or /tr/uuag. I like 
> the UAAG approach of just the letter in red and in parenth at 
> the end of the line: (P1)
[KG] Anything you wish

> >    This 10-point enumeration is derived from a [52]proposal 
> to the QA mail list, after the 4/2001 QA Workshop.
> First, it's unclear what relation exists between this 
> commitment scale and the requirement expressed in the surrounding
> so it's kind of confusing.
> Second, somewhow, I think the table is too complex and should 
> be reorganized more efficiently: half of text is just a 
> duplicate of the same sentence. David's original linear list 
> was simpler if I remember correctly.
[KG] I agree, it should be simplified further. Though, I don't see any
confusion, and the table is definitely less complex and clearer then the
original enumeration (it's just a copy/paste derivation from the

> >    Checkpoint 1.2.Priority 2.In charter, specify completion and
> >    Checkpoint 1.3.Priority 1.In charter, address QA staffing 

> I rather reverse the priority of those two: what's more 
> important is that the WG promises to complete its QA work, 
> not that they identify QA staff ahead of time.
[KG] Agree, but let's discuss.

> >      [54] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2002/framework-20020118/TAXONOMY
> broken link
> (should run ,checklink on all documents, Dom will not publish
[KG] This is planned.

> not sure a spell checker is going to catch that, but the 
> english is poor, I suggest:
[KG] All the wording problems have been postponed past WG review. It is
being fixed now.
> >    Guideline 6. Produce QA process document.
> long guideline, either we'll have to split it or to combine 
> checkpoints (by experience). not needed for first PD.
[KG] I'd disagree, but let's discuss later, postpone for now.

> >    Checkpoint 6.1.Priority 2.Review Technical Guidelines 
> before writing
> >    QA Process document and starting test materials development.
> not verifiable really, so should not be there
[KG] I think it is. We may cast it into note, butshoudl leave it there.

> >      [57] 
> > http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2002/framework-20020118/QA-TECH-GUIDE
> broken link, maybe should point at DOM process for now
[KG] will fix, should point to reference section. 

> >    Checkpoint 6.2.Priority 2.In QA Process document, 
> this one looks like a dup of 6.5, or 6.5 + 6.2, in any case, 
> it looks like it's already covered by following checkpoints
[KG] Ok.But let's postpone this.

> >    The following example may serve as a guideline for tests review
> >    process
> maybe mention that this kind of materials will eventually go 
> into the example/technical companion
[KG] Should we mention this in the text? 

> >    Checkpoint 6.7.Priority 3.In QA Process document, 
> describe how vendors
> >    can publish test results for their products, if applicable.
> this one similar to 3.2 and 3.3, should probably go there or disappear
We may cast it as a note.

> >    The following procedure is recommended:
> > 
> >    Before transfer WG with the help of QA WG:
> same remark as above, example/technique stuff, ok to keep in 
> FPWG but should mention that it will go away eventually
[KG] Since there is no ex-tech right now, it seems to be obvious.

> > 3. WG relationship to QA Activity
> Is time the only reason why this section is not turned into a 
> guideline/checkpoint layout ?
[KG] Answered earlier - this is By Design, we'll put some note into

> >      * The conformance level satisfied: "Level 1", "Level 
> 2", or "Level
> >        3".
> >    Example:
> > 
> >    This QA processes and operations of this Working Group 
> [???] conform
> >    to W3C's "QA Framework: Process & Operational 
> Guidelines", available
> >    at [...tbd...], Level 2.
> > 
> you mean A, AA, etc
[KG] Yep, we'll fix it.

Received on Monday, 28 January 2002 12:19:00 UTC

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