- From: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
- Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2004 09:12:15 -0400
- To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>, Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
- Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
This was a generalization of the old Test Assertion GL/CP as well as other things. We discussed this (are TAs a technique or GP) at the F2F. I argued that it is a technique. Karl argued for GP. I'm not sure that we came to consensus. However, given Karl's document structure and reason for it being a GP, I can accept it being a GP as well as making other items that I originally had as techniques (e.g., write sample code or tests). As Karl said, by having them as GPs rather than a technique, it is more obvious that you can do more than one of these (e.g., do both TAs and sample code). --lynne At 08:46 AM 7/2/2004, Lofton Henderson wrote: >At 04:38 PM 7/1/2004 -0400, Karl Dubost wrote: >>[...] >>I think this section is very important and could recommend many simple >>Good Practices. > >As I recall, this "quality control" section is a generalization of the old >Test Assertions GL/CP -- TA extraction or identification were to be >considered a technique for quality control. Would you imagine TAs being a >Good Practice instead? Or a Technique (as below)? Or ...? > >-Lofton. > > >>The Principle behind that. >> >>Principle: >> Do quality control during the specification development >> >>What does that mean? >> The more the specification work is organized, the more the >> control on development process of your specification, the more chances >> to move smoothly across the W3C Process, and to have a better final >> product. Each time, a version of the document is publish, the WG must >> ensure that individual sections, it can be a full section or simply the >> explanation of a feature is coherent and complete. >> >>Why should I care? >> Publishing a specification with incomplete section is very >> damaging at many levels : >> - Image of the WG >> - Understanding of the technology >> - Possibility of good review and comments from people outside >> the WG. >> All these issues will tend to slow down the process and the >> advancement of the development of the technology. >> >> >>Related: >> >>Techniques: >> 1. Create at the begining a mini guide to help people to work on >> the technology and write submissions for the specification. >> 2. Follow some or all of these following good practices >> 3. If you really need to put an incomplete section, make it >> clear that >> 3.a It's incomplete >> 3.b comments are not encouraged on this particular section. >> 4. Divide the work in small units, so people can see regular >> progress >> (5. Quality can be fun, make it fun.) >> >> >>Examples: >> Publication template for SpecGL >> RDF/OWL organization for submitting tests. >> SVG? >> >>-- >>Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/ >>W3C Conformance Manager >>*** Be Strict To Be Cool *** >> > > >
Received on Friday, 2 July 2004 09:15:14 UTC