- From: Patrick Curran <Patrick.Curran@Sun.COM>
- Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 11:16:04 +0100
- To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Cc: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>, "'www-qa-wg@w3.org'" <www-qa-wg@w3.org>
I'll add this item to the list of potential improvements/modifications to TestFAQ that I'm working on... Lofton Henderson wrote: > > About the possible integration of "Taxonomy" and "Test FAQ" -- how did > we leave that question and potential (small) project? > > -Lofton. > > > At 03:30 PM 7/26/2005 -0400, Karl Dubost wrote: > >> QA WG, >> >> this is a proposal of things that could be done after the QA WG has >> closed. All these ideas are open to discussions, comments and >> concrete proposals. As a side note, all of these will work only if >> people are inclined to work on them. It might be worthwhile to >> discuss them, but it's even better if you think you can commit time >> for it, to evaluate this time. It doesn't have to be a lot of time. >> Sometimes 30 minutes by week could be as valuable >> for a project than 1 day every two months. >> >> You can propose also other projects. >> >> >> Project I: Test Markup Language >> >> The start of a vocabulary is available on the wiki. >> http://esw.w3.org/topic/TestCaseMetadata >> >> These words have a short definition >> - identification >> - name >> - purpose >> - description >> - status >> - versioning >> - link to spec(s) >> - link to issue(s) >> - dependencies >> - grouping >> - variability-driven filtering criteria >> - input (or pre/post conditions?) >> - expected result >> >> >> First part of the work, for each word of this vocabulary. >> Time/Resource: 2 days for 2 persons >> >> - is it required or not, >> - any syntax requirements, >> - description of it, >> - any dependencies, and >> - example. >> >> Need to develop an outline of the type of information needed >> for each item. For now, just try to expand on a few items >> and then when we see what we get and need, we can make >> it more formalized. For each item, think about what is >> needed to describe it. >> >> This will set a kind of requirements document or model for a Test >> Markup Language. >> >> Second phase: >> Creating the specification for a language. This is not feasible >> if not a lot of people participating. >> >> >> * Specification Reviews against QA Framework Specification Guidelines. >> >> The specifications can be announced on the www-qa ML and people >> could review them. Depending of the specifications it can be more or >> less long to do. The benefits of such work, >> - we improve specifications quality, >> - you improve your technological skills. >> >> >> * QA Spec Conformance Clause Template >> http://www.w3.org/QA/2004/08/SpecGL-template-root.html >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2005Jul/ >> thread.html#20 >> Time/Resource: 3 days for 1 person >> >> Finalize the QA Conformance Clause Template for QA Specl GL >> >> >> * QA Spec Conformance Clause Form >> http://www.w3.org/QA/2004/08/SpecGL-template-root.html >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2005Jul/ >> thread.html#20 >> Time/Resource: 3 days for 1 person >> >> Make a form to ease the editing. >> >> * QA Process Document Template >> http://www.w3.org/QA/2004/08/QAH-qapd-root.html >> Time/Resource: 3 days for 1 person >> >> Finish the templates >> >> * QA Process Document Form >> http://www.w3.org/QA/2004/08/QAH-qapd-root.html >> Time/Resource: 3 days for 1 person >> >> Make a form to ease the editing. >> >> >> * QA Charter >> http://www.w3.org/QA/2004/08/QAH-charter.html >> Time/Resource: 3 days for 1 person >> >> Create a template to help Staff contacts to take QA into account >> in charter writing. >> >> >> >> * How to define elements in Markup Language >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005Jul/thread.html#6 >> Time/Ressource: 1 week for 2 persons >> Initiator: Bjoern Hoehrmann >> >> Elements are defined in many ways in specifications. Could we >> create a best practices guides on how to define elements (features) >> in a specification and then propose the markup for it. >> >> >> * QA Primer >> http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/qaframe-primer >> Time/Resource: 3 days for 1 person >> >> Rewriting and reorganization a bit of the QA Primer to make it >> more appealing to editors. >> >> >> * XMLSpec Analysis with regards to QA Framework >> http://www.w3.org/2002/xmlspec/ >> Time/Resource: 2 weeks for 2 persons >> >> XMLSpec is a tool/vocabulary to write W3C specifications. The >> goal of the work is to analyze how the vocabulary can be modified, or >> which vocabulary to add that it makes easier to implement QA >> Framework Specification Guidelines. >> >> >> * XMLSpec Tutorial >> http://www.w3.org/2002/xmlspec/ >> Time/Resource: 3 weeks for 2 persons >> >> Writing a guide to use XMLSpec >> >> >> * XMLSpec <-> XHTML tools >> http://www.w3.org/2002/xmlspec/ >> Time/Resource: 3 weeks for 2 persons >> >> Create tools to be able to edit with XHTML and classes and to >> convert it with XMLSpec. >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/ >> W3C Conformance Manager >> *** Be Strict To Be Cool *** >> >> > > >
Received on Tuesday, 9 August 2005 10:15:43 UTC