- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 08:49:54 -0600
- To: www-qa@w3.org
QA Interest Group, In addition to the specific issues that Olivier has highlighted (thanks for that), on behalf of the SpecGL (Specification Guidelines) editors I'd like to also indicate our keen desire to hear from you about the fundamental changes to the SpecGL. These resulted from comments and discussion, on this list, about the first published version. From the current SpecGL Status section [0], [[ this version has focused on a complete reorganization and restructuring of the guidelines of Theme 1, Conformance Content. Old Guidelines 1 - 11 are restructured into 13 new guidelines, organized around a central concept of specification "dimensions of variability" (DoV). The QAWG has done this with the specific goal of presenting it to the W3C, to solicit feedback on: 1.is this a useful organization that QAWG should pursue, develop, and refine? 2.are there dimensions that we can eliminate, or major dimensions that we have missed (and that can't be fit into an existing dimension)? 3.can we start to make and integrate judgements about goodness and badness within particular dimensions or combinations of dimensions? About #3, in this version the QAWG has included checkpoints that require explanation and justification of the use of DoVs within a specification, and has warned of the dangers of excessive variability, but has generally avoided specific value judgements. The QAWG has debated and has a currently active issue about whether it is possible to provide some sort of quantitative constraints on variability (e.g., maximum number of DoV, or a computed "variability index", etc.) ]] Regards, Lofton. [0] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-qaframe-spec-20020826/#status At 04:27 PM 8/28/02 +0900, Olivier Thereaux wrote: >QA Interest Group, > >Monday (august 26th) the QA working Group has published a new draft of >"QA Framework: Specification Guidelines" > >Latest version : >http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/ >This version: >http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-qaframe-spec-20020826/ > > >Reviewing the work of the QAWG is one of the primary tasks of this >interest group, so I encourage you to go read/review this draft. Early >review will be a crucial factor in the quality of this QA framework. > >May I draw attention on "issues" for this draft: > >[[ >In addition to feedback about the overall direction and organization, >there are specific issues about which the QAWG desires feedback. The >most persistent issues involve the relationships amongst the ways of >dividing or grouping the technology -- profiles, modules, levels -- and >whether there are relationships that are better (should be encouraged) >and ones that are worse (should be discouraged). Some specific issues >are flagged in the text, and may also be found in the QAWG Issues >List[1], specifically atomicity of modules[2], levels minimality[3], >modules-levels[4], levels-profiles[5], legacy specifications[6]. (Issues >and editor notes are flagged in the text with "@@".) >]] > >[1] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/qawg-issues-html >[2] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/qawg-issues-html#x73 >[3] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/qawg-issues-html#x74 >[4] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/qawg-issues-html#x75 >[5] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/qawg-issues-html#x76 >[6] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/qawg-issues-html#x77 > > >Please send reviews to this list <www-qa@w3.org> > >Thanks. olivier. >-- >Olivier Thereaux - W3C >http://www.w3.org/People/olivier | http://yoda.zoy.org
Received on Thursday, 29 August 2002 10:49:24 UTC