- From: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
- Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 11:04:45 -0400
- To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>, www-qa-wg@w3.org
Some comments on the initial sections of the QAH [1] 1. Question regarding Title. I like QA Handbook. Its not a primer or cookbook. The Webster's definition is "concise manual or reference book providing specific information or instruction about a subject or place". Exactly what this is. 2. Status of document - should we discuss where QAH came from. Yes, but briefly. It belongs in SoTD. Something like: "The QAH is the synthesis of the QAWG's previous work on a QA Framework series of documents specifically, the QAF: Introduction and Operational Guidelines. It takes the 'best of' from these documents and presents it in a simpler, clearer, friendlier manner. The two draft QAF documents have since been deprecated." 3. Other QA Framework resource Suggest changing to make it less specific, we don't have a chicken-egg problem with the SpecLite and TestLite progression. Suggest: "Editors, test builders... about their roles in the other QA deliverables. (linking QA deliverables to our list of deliverables)." This will keep it general and can encompass other deliverables as well - e.g., if we create white paper on DoV. 4. Conformance Do we really need this section. I suggest removing it. It adds nothing and may set a bad precedent. Since this is a Handbook, we don't violate our own rule of having a conformance section in every specification. 5. Early planning and commitment - What does this mean. Don't need the 'In theory.." Lets jst stick with the "in practice" stuff. All for now. Lynne >[1] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2004/04/QA-handbook.html
Received on Tuesday, 13 April 2004 11:07:13 UTC