- From: Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
- Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:19:55 -0500
- To: www-qa@w3.org
- Cc: w3c-xml-protocol-wg@w3.org
I recently reviewed the QA Framework: Specification Guidelines[1] on behalf of the XML Protocol WG. Here are my detailed comments: Status Despite being billed as a LC draft, there's no mention of this in the spec. Section 1.1, second bullet Second sentence implies that all checkpoints must be satisfied to comply with the guidelines whereas only priority 1 checkpoints are mandatory. Section 2 Checkpoint 1.1 - rather wooly conformance requirements. Checkpoint 1.2 - can use cases and examples be in a separate document from the main spec ? Guideline 2, third para - typo 'as either or producers' remove 'or' Checkpoint 2.1 - second conformance requirement refers to list of classes but its not clear which list it is referring to. If its the list under guideline 2 then that list is non-exhaustive so requiring people to use that list is somewhat limiting. Checkpoint 2.3 - what is a category of object ? The same as a class of product ? Checkpoint 2.4 - 'define their relationships and interaction with other dimensions of variability' this is a confusing checkpoint that is repeated in each successive guideline. It's really not clear exactly what is intended. Checkpoint 3.1 - conformance requirements - only one section for this or are multiple OK ? Checkpoint 4.4 - 'experience shows ... meets all the pertinent checkpoints of this document' - what experience ? As this is not yet a recommendation this seems like a rather strong statement. Guideline 5 - Modules are non-hierarchical - can modules have dependencies on other modules ? If so, isn't this a hierarchy ? Checkpoint 7.1 - conformance requirements imply a single section for deprecated features - is it not OK to include deprecations where they occur without a summary section ? Checkpoint 8.4 - conformance requirements not clear, what does 'document the identified policies for handling discretionary choices' mean. Guideline 9 - A very well thought out section IMO. Checkpoint 14.1 - conformance requirements - is a separate document OK or does this have to be in the same doc as the rest of the spec. Section 3.3 - amusing that this section doesn't meet checkpoint 14.1 and therefore renders the document as only A-conforming to itself. Would be better if the document were AAA-conforming to itself IMO. Section 3.4 - Example - not true, see above comment on 3.3. Section 7 - date for LC WD is in the future (or at least it was when the doc was published). Regards, Marc (on behalf of the XML Protocol WG). [1] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2003/01/qaframe-spec/ -- Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com> Web Technologies and Standards, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Monday, 10 March 2003 16:20:02 UTC