- From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 11:31:48 -0400
- To: www-qa@w3.org
- Cc: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Dear Chris, Thanks for your comments on the Last Call version of the QA Framework: Specification Guidelines[0] - 22 November 2004 After two weeks from now (on May 18, 2005), the lack of answer will be considered as if you had accepted the comment. Original comment (bug 1158): http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005Mar/0014.html The QA Working Group has completed a SpecGL ICS for SpecGL itself, available at: http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2005/04/specgl-specgl-ics.html We believe SpecGL now conforms to itself, since it implements all the Requirements; it also implements all but one Good Practice. Follow belows details answers to the comments made in the footnotes of the ICS the TAG filled for the previous version of SpecGL [1] 1) No link to Class of Products statement We believe linking to the section including the statement is sufficient 2) ICS required for claiming conformance? We have clarified that "if all the Requirements are checked on the ICS as being satisfied, then conformance can be claimed as detailed below", linking to the conformance claim section, which requires linking to a completed ICS. 3) Class of Product vs Scope The scope is what is covered by the specification; the class of products are part of defining the scope, but a more narrow (and in our opinion important) aspect of it that directly affects conformance. 4) "Using the defined term conformance model..." Done 5) Checking whether references have been reviewed carefully The good practice has been reworded to be less workflow oriented 6) Positive statements for no subdivision SpecGL clarifies now that a positive statement is indeed needed, and indeed states that it is not subdivided. 7) No extensibility mechanism We disagree that SpecGL doesn't define an extensibility mechansim. In section 4.3 (Extensibility), we say that one can extend SpecGL as long as it doesn't negate the requirements given in the specification. This is a basic extensibility mechanism, and we don't think at this time there is any need for a more complex one. 8) No deprecated features listed SpecGL clarifies that making a positive statement about deprecated features is only needed when there was a previous version of the specification (which is not the case for SpecGL itself) 9) No obsolete features identified Same as 8 10) & 11) Hard to demonstrate some GP The QA WG has moved the given GP into a separate informative section of SpecGL, since they were indeed too workflow-oriented to fit with the other Good Practices. [0] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-qaframe-spec-20041122/ [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005Mar/att-0014/ qaframework-recursiveconformance.html -- Karl Dubost QA Working Group Chair http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/
Received on Tuesday, 3 May 2005 15:32:33 UTC