QAWG Issues for 2-oct

QAWG,

Here are some issues listed as "Active" in the 2002-10-01 Issues List 
[1].  This incorporates the 20 new SpecGL issues (#80-101).    This is for 
Wed (2-oct) telecon.

I'd suggest trying to close some of the non-SpecGL issues, and maybe some 
"easy" SpecGL issues (e.g., #80? #97?  #101?).


#68:  Status of Extech parts [all-framework]
#60: QA responsibilities of existing WGs [Ops]
#39: choice of MUST/SHOULD/MAY [Ops]
#64: choice of MUST/SHOULD/MAY [Spec]

#49: W3C standard license for test materials [Ops]
#50: liability from 3rd-party TM usage [Ops]
#59: W3C standard license for submitted test materials [Ops]
#32: Guidelines/checkpoints for branding [Ops]

#100  "Non-normative" is undefined, and used in place of the defined 
"informative".
#101  Should the GL documents use conformance levels instead of prioritized 
checkpoints?
#99 Scope of definition of test assertion. [Spec]
#98 Should test assertions be included in a spec? [Spec]
#97 Distinguish normative and informative text.  [Spec]
#96 Why require Implementation Conformance Statement?  [Spec]
#95 Is it practical to "provide specific wording of conformance 
claims"?  [Spec]
#94 Why identify unused DoV (ckpt 10.5)?  [Spec]
#93 Why register extensions?  [Spec]
#92 Remove guideline on Extensions (GL9).  [Spec]
#91 Why should discretionary items be handled consistently within an 
implementation (CK8.4)?  [Spec]
#90 Remove guideline on deprecation (GL6).  [Spec]
#89 Is the SpecGL a spec?  [Spec]
#88 SpecGL objective and value.  [Spec]
#87 Should the SpecGL elaborate on DoV definition and discussion.  [Spec]
#86 Checkpoint 1.5 should be lowered to priority 3.  [Spec]
#85 Should every test assertion be covered by a example?  [Spec]
#84 Should examples and user scenarios be lower priorities?  [Spec]
#83 Clean up subjective and imprecise wording.  [Spec]
#82 Re-title Guideline 1, replacing "use cases" with "scope".  [Spec]
#81 Definition of specification testability  [Spec]
#80 RFC 2119 Keywords are used inconsistently in the SpecGL.  [Spec]

#73: require atomicity of modules [Spec]
#74: scope of the minimality of level 1 [Spec]
#75: relationship of modules and levels [Spec]
#76: levels and profiles [Spec]
#77: different requirements for legacy specifications [Spec]
#78: checkpoint against implementation dependent features [Spec]
#69: Discourage flavors of conformance [Spec]
#61: Require standard terminology? [Spec]
#15: Address/define valid conformance claims? [Spec]
#51: Deprecated features [Spec]
#13: Inter-standard and multi-standard conformance [Spec?]

#23: Tests for SHOULD/MAY [Test]
#79: TestGL and "how to" guidelines  [Test]
#43: Relationship of "Certification Note" and Framework [Ops]
#14: How to do E&O [Process?]
#35: Resource supplement to other WGs [Ops]

Regards,
-Lofton.

[1] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/qawg-issues-html

Received on Wednesday, 2 October 2002 00:24:40 UTC