Review of XHTML Print Last Call against QA Spec GL

This version:: http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-qaframe-spec-20030912/qaframe-spec-checklist
Review Author:: Karl Dubost

General comments

Review sent to the HTML WG the 1st of Octobre 2003.

I'm late for this review. Please consider this comment for Last Call as informative. But you can still decide to treat them.

It's a very good specification. You failed:

2 Priority 1 (maybe only one see in the comments.)
3 Priority 2
5 Priority 3

It will be very easy to achieve Priority 1. Priority 2 depending on the test assertions commitment. But that's still a good news. If you need help to understand, send an email to www-qa-wg@w3.org with the topic [XHTML Print] QA review.

Typo. s/Guillemots/Guillemets/. Guillemot is a bird.

Checklist table

Nbr	Checkpoint	Priority	Yes	No	N/A
Guideline 1. Define Scope.
1.1	Include a scope statement.	[Priority 1]	YES
1.2	Illustrate scope.	[Priority 2]	YES
1.3	Illustrate functional details.	[Priority 2]			YES
Guideline 2. Identify what needs to conform and how.
Nbr	Checkpoint	Priority	Yes	No	N/A
2.1	Identify classes of product.	[Priority 1]		NO. In the Conformance section, you could identify formaly all the classes of products. It's almost done in the title of your different conformance section parts.
2.2	For each class of product, define the conformance requirements.	[Priority 1]	YES
2.3	Identify the applicable specification categories.	[Priority 3]	YES
2.4	If there are several classes of products, define their relationships and interaction with other dimensions of variability.	[Priority 2]	YES
Guideline 3. Address the use of profiles, modules and levels to divide the technology.
Nbr	Checkpoint	Priority	Yes	No	N/A
3.1	Indicate whether or not the use of profiles is mandatory for conformance.	[Priority 1]	YES
3.2	If profiles are chosen, define any minimal requirements.	[Priority 2]			N/A
3.3	If profiles are chosen, address rules for profiles.	[Priority 2]			N/A
3.4	If modules are chosen, indicate any mandatory conditions or constraints on their usage.	[Priority 1]	YES
3.5	If profiles, modules or levels are used, define their relationships and interaction with other dimensions of variability.	[Priority 2]	YES
Guideline 4. Identify the relation between deprecated features and conformance.
Nbr	Checkpoint	Priority	Yes	No	N/A
4.1	Identify each deprecated feature.	[Priority 1]			N/A
4.2	For each class of product, specify the degree of support required for each deprecated feature and the conformance consequences of the deprecation.	[Priority 1]			N/A
4.3	If deprecated features exist, define their relationships and interaction with other dimensions of variability.	[Priority 2]			N/A
4.4	Include an explanation for the deprecation.	[Priority 3]			N/A
4.5	Include examples to illustrate how to avoid using deprecated features.	[Priority 3]			N/A
4.6	Identify each obsolete feature.	[Priority 3]			N/A
Guideline 5. Define discretionary items.
Nbr	Checkpoint	Priority	Yes	No	N/A
5.1	State the circumstances for when discretionary items are allowed.	[Priority 1]	YES
5.2	For implementation dependent values or features, address the allowable differences between implementations.	[Priority 1]	YES + Info
5.3	Indicate any constraints on the number of choices/options that can be implemented for discretionary items.	[Priority 2]	YES
5.4	Promote consistent handling of discretionary choices.	[Priority 2]		NO. But we are not sure it's applicable in this case. It would be good to know though.
5.5	If discretionary items are used, define their relationships and interaction with other dimensions of variability.	[Priority 2]	YES. Example.
Guideline 6. Allow extensions or not
Nbr	Checkpoint	Priority	Yes	No	N/A
6.1	Indicate if the specification is extensible, and if extensions are allowed, define their scope and constraints.	[Priority 1]	YES
6.2	Prevent extensions from contradicting the specification.	[Priority 1]	YES by default. But it's not explicit stated.
6.3	Define a uniform mechanism to create an extension.	[Priority 3]	YES. must conform CSS Print Profile and image processing
6.4	Require that extensions be published.	[Priority 3]		NO. But not sure it's relevant
6.5	Mitigate the impact of extensions on interoperability.	[Priority 3]			N/A. Not producer of content.
6.6	If extensions are allowed, define their relationships and interaction with other dimensions of variability	[Priority 2]	YES
Guideline 7. Clearly identify conformance requirements.
Nbr	Checkpoint	Priority	Yes	No	N/A
7.1	Use conformance key words.	[Priority 1]	YES
7.2	Distinguish normative and informative content.	[Priority 1]	YES. The spec shows section informative content. We guess the right is normative. Might be good to say so.
7.3	Use consistent terminology.	[Priority 1]	YES
7.4	Provide a fast way to find conformance information.	[Priority 2]	YES
7.5	Make normative reference to specifications on which the current specification depends	[Priority 1]	YES
Guideline 8. Document the conformance policy.
Nbr	Checkpoint	Priority	Yes	No	N/A
8.1	Specify any universal requirements for minimum functionality.	[Priority 2]	YES
8.2	If special conformance concepts are used, include a definition in the specification.	[Priority 1]			N/A
8.3	Justify any usage of a dimension of variability.	[Priority 1]	YES
8.4	Include a conformance section.	[Priority 1]	YES
8.5	Identify and define all conformance designations.	[Priority 1]			N/A
Guideline 9. Specify how to make conformance claims.
Nbr	Checkpoint	Priority	Yes	No	N/A
9.1	Provide specific wording of the claim.	[Priority 3]		NO. Easy to fix.
9.2	Provide a conformance disclaimer.	[Priority 3]		NO. Easy to fix.
9.3	Impose no restrictions about who can make a claim or where claims can be published.	[Priority 1]	NO. Easy to fix.
9.4	Provide an Implementation Conformance Statement proforma.	[Priority 3]		NO. Easy to fix.
9.5	Require the ICS be completed as part of the conformance claim.	[Priority 3]		NO. Easy to fix.
Guideline 10. Provide test assertions.
Nbr	Checkpoint	Priority	Yes	No	N/A
10.1	Provide test assertions	[Priority 2]		NO. Easy to fix.
10.2	Provide a mapping between the specification and the test assertions list.	[Priority 2]		NO. Easy to fix.

References

QAF-SPEC: QA Framework: Specification Guidelines, D. Hazaël-Massieux, L. Rosenthal, L. Henderson, Eds., W3C Working Draft, 12 September 2003, available at http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-qaframe-spec-20030912/.