- From: Patrick Curran <Patrick.Curran@sun.com>
- Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 12:55:50 -0800
- To: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
- CC: W3C QAWG <www-qa-wg@w3.org>
Thanks. I wondered about the "tools" statement myself - I took this from earlier presentations. It sounds as if we don't actually have any "software tools" today (templates are certainly very valuable, and are a "tool" in the broad sense, but probably don't qualify in most peoples' minds). Should we strike this reference for now? When we've had a chance to catch our breath, I'd like to talk to the group about tools, and about some of the work we're doing at Sun. In particular, we're planning to update a specification markup tool that I think would be of general interest. I hope (and believe) I'll be able to fund this, and to get permission to donate it. The other area where I see a great need is for a test-harness, and again I think we can help. Of course, all of the tools we develop are Java-based :) Karl Dubost wrote: > > Hi Patrick, > > wondeful work, Congrats!!! > > At 12:54 -0800 2003-02-17, Patrick Curran wrote: > >> * How the QA-WG can help >> >> We can't do your QA work for you >> We don't have the resources nor the domain-specific expertise >> We do provide guidance, tools, and processes > > > Which tools? :) a list even for us will be good to establish and will > help us to identify what's needed by W3C and WGs > > 1. Templates. > We have the ,new tool which is very practical to prototype documents > and could reduce tremendously the burden of an author or an editor. If > we design good templates, we can help people to focus on editing > content and not worry about markup. > > 2. Templates for spec. Again. > There's already a template when you create a new WD, but imagine you > have a template that help an author to draft a feature for a spec. > > You have a form and you design: > Element name: [ ] > > Description: [ ] > [ ] > Testable Assertion: [ ] > > Examples: [ ] > [ ] > [ ] > > And this markup could generate a kind of "QA standard" markup that an > editor could add in his Working Draft. > > 3. Issues Tracking -> Guide for http://www.w3.org/Bugs > 4. Planning for organizing different calls and different stages of a > specification. > > Other simple things? Let's come with simple ideas, easily implementable. > >
Received on Tuesday, 18 February 2003 15:56:54 UTC