- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 13:02:46 -0600
- To: Dominique Hazaël-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
- Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
Generally I like them. A couple of small comments: At 06:23 PM 6/20/03 +0200, Dominique Hazaël-Massieux wrote: >Here is what Lynne and I (but mostly Lynne) have been producing as use >cases for specGL. Our current intent is to insert the short version >(bulleted list) at the end of the introduction, while having the >detailed list as an appendix to the document. I haven't thought this through yet. But what about the idea of putting the detailed description in SpecET, linked from the brief description in SpecGL intro? >[...] > > > > Use Case 1: Working Group is writing a new specification or new edition > > Actors: WG, Specification authors/editors, QA WG > > a) WG develops a requirements document and/or use cases supporting > the > > developing of a new Specification > > b) Prior to writing the specification, the WG and the specification > > authors review the SpecGL to help in planning the content, structure and > > presentation style of the specification. > > c) WG identifies the applicable SpecGL guidelines and checkpoints and > > strive to satisfy the conformance requirements of the applicable SpecGL > > checkpoint. > > d) WG discusses and determines its conformance policy specifically, > > what goes into the conformance clause, whether to subset the technology > > (e.g., define profiles, modules), the need for and effect of optional > > features, discretionary choices, extensions, etc. > > e) Authors take action (e.g., write text, structure document) to meet > > at least all Priority 1 checkpoints. > > f) Authors use normative language to identify requirements and labels > > normative and informative text. > > g) Authors use markup to indicate testable assertions and enable test > > traceability. Before this step (between #f and #g), shouldn't that authors deliberate and chose a writing style, either embedded TA (implied by #g), or clear expression of non-TA conformance requirements? (Maybe this is implicit in step #f?) All for now, -Lofton.
Received on Saturday, 21 June 2003 15:01:48 UTC