Re: [www-qa] Re: input document for f2f

Thanks Dave for your review.

Too bad you can't come to our first f2f meeting.

Hope you can come to some other f2f.

Some comments back.

> A few quick reactions:
> People could take away different interpretations depending on what they
> think you mean by "interoperability" -- is it the ability to plug in any
> vendor's implementation of a single Rec within a possibly proprietary
> software framework, or is it the ability to plug together different
> vendors' implementations of W3C Recs A and B?

yes, important to define the goal.

to me, I14Y is the ability to plug in any implementation of a spec
with any other without having the implementers having ever met.

> In part 3.1, you should mention use of the test suite by a third-party
> test lab, which may be a (real or virtual) magazine doing testing for
> publication, or it could be an advisory service acting on behalf of
> paying clients.

yes

> Also say something to position the idea of testing across
> multiple Recommendations, possibly from multiple WGs. This is needed for
> certain kinds of software but may be wishful at this time, so I'd say
> that the notion should be acknowledged but positioned as a long-range
> objective. Some of the goals in 1.1 around common test tools would be
> more compelling if they could be used to test the interoperation of
> multiple Recs.

agreed

> The mention of Accessibility and Internationalization (A&I) in 3.3.10
> raises an interesting coordination issue. Then in 3.4, another aspect of
> coordination arises, which actually interacts: do the A&I groups work
> with QA as well as the Rec-track WG, does QA try to represent A&I
> interests, does QA join the list (that A&I are currently on) of groups
> that review the work of Rec-track WGs, or is there some other
> relationship? 

W3C has several horizontal reviewing activities going on, and QA is
not currently supposed to replace them but to complement them. There
is mention in the IG charter of coming up with shared resources (be it
methodology or tools) and thinking long terms about reorganizing W3C
with a more "horizontal domain" of activity, maybe with a QA larger
hat this time.

> Also, who gets to have their say about the Requirements
> Document of a Rec-track WG? While answering these questions, we must not
> foster the thought that quality is applied by an external force after
> the WG creates a draft or CR; the WG itself is responsible for doing
> their work under the guidance of this Framework and other statements
> about quality.

not sure what you mean but QA is clearly charter to improve the
documents W3C produces, not just the implementation people produces
out of these documents.

Received on Friday, 9 November 2001 06:42:18 UTC