- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 16:25:36 -0600
- To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
QAWG, Here are some issues listed as "Active" in the 2002-09-26 Issues List [1]. This incorporates the 20 new SpecGL issues (#80-99). I will shortly be adding a couple others that have come up since. 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?). #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] #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 Monday, 30 September 2002 18:24:15 UTC