QAWG Last Call Disposition of Comments for IntroGuide

[No action required.] Thank you for the positive feedback -- it is useful to know that it is fulfilling its purpose.

W3C process and pubrules do not distinguish between WD and Last Call WD in the dated subtitle. The distinction is required in the "Status of this document" section.

This has been fixed as suggested -- document is used uniformly when "Introduction" refers to itself.

This has been fixed as a result of the substantial rewrite of "QA Framework: Introduction" from issue #68 -- as a result of consolidation, that text is gone.

This has been fixed as a result the substantial rewrite of "QA Framework: Introduction" from issue #68 -- as a result of consolidation, that text is gone.

This has changed as a result of the substantial rewrite of "QA Framework: Introduction" from issue #68.

This has changed as a result of the substantial rewrite of "QA Framework: Introduction" from issue #68.

It is our intent that the order be uniform where the framework family is discussed, unless driven by another criterion such as roles or scenarios. We are not aware of any non-uniformities in the revised text.

This has changed as a result of the substantial rewrite of "QA Framework: Introduction" from issue #68.

[No action required.] Thank you for the positive feedback.

We will consider this for a future version of "QA Framework: Introduction" (which is now being published as a "Note"). We have put a "chronology diagram" into "QA Framework: Specification Guidelines." One lesson from there is that the chronology is only approximate, and there can be wide variation without substantially diluting the benefits. A submission of a draft table would be welcomed and considered for inclusion.

Yes. The 4.2.2 wording has been changed to simply, "QA moderator".

The first choice (bringing spec to conformance). The sentence has been revised to remove the ambiguity.

This has been revised to clarify.

As a general rule, we have used "WG" a lot for brevity. We have tried to have a full "Working Group" spelled out nearby, e.g., somewhere early in the same section. We have used markup extensively to define the WG acronym.

This has been made consistent (";").

Fixed.

Fixed.

Agreed, the terms should be defined. Note that "conformance" is defined in the "QA Glossary", but "interoperability" is not. An action item has been given to the glossary owners to add this. A note has been added to "Terminology", to refer to "QA Glossary" for definitions.

Agreed, this has been added.

Agreed, the first occurrence of WAI is defined (in the text substantially revised per LC-68.)

Done, "assets" is now "technical assets" (per the 2nd following subsection).

Agreed, "Introduction" is uniformly referred to as "document" now.

This has been clarified by identifying them as SpecGL topics, and adding a Guideline # reference to each list item.)

After preliminary discussion, QAWG does not think that ISO9000 could replace QA Framework. However an action item to generate a comparison has been assigned and is in progress. It will be circulated to QA distribution when finished. A future version of the "Introduction" part of the QA Framework (now a W3C Working Group Note) could mention or point to the results.

An action item has been assigned and is in progress, to generate a some cost-benefit data. It will be circulated to QA distribution when finished. A future version of the "Introduction" part of the QA Framework (now a W3C Working Group Note) could mention or point to the results. Some preliminary results have been incorporated into the new (for renewal) QA Activity statements and charters.

QA Framework: Introduction has been substantially revised, and in the process the motivational material and discussion of QA within W3C has been substantially condensed and focused. Regarding any formal relationship of QA to W3C processes as described in "W3C Process" document itself -- there is no defined relationship now. As the status of any such relationship is likely to be changeable and volatile, QAWG considers it inadvisable to address that in any of the Framework documents.

Resolution. It is QAWG's intention to shift its resources to tools now, as well as finishing Test Guidelines. How much we can achieve is ultimately limited QAWG resources (number of active participants). Tool suggestions are welcome.

Resolution. A tool like this might be considered outside of the scope of QAWG/IG charters (more in-scope for Comm, for example). That notwithstanding, a number of such tools exist. A summary of diff tools was a topic on the W3C spec-prod list.

Resolution. Templates to facilitate the QA-related aspects of operations, specifications, and test materials is definitely within the QAWG/IG scope and future agenda. The suggested "universal template" might actually fall in the domain of the Comm team, or possible joint Comm-QAWG project. In recent Chairs email, a new homepage for editors was announced. This suggestion will be forwarded to Comm for further discussion.

QAWG recognizes the value of early involvement of non-WG members in QA deliverables. It will be added to QAWG's agenda, to consider where and how this might best be addressed. It is unclear whether it should be addressed in one of the QA Framework documents (which one?), in a QA Note, or some other way.

Resolution. Subsequent to this comment, QAWG did a review of CC/PP according to Last Call WD of Specification Guidelines, and a discussion followed. Thanks for your consideration of QAWG's review comments in your CC/PP progression.

The glossary project have been through 5 months of development and is being tested at the moment, It can scrape, manipulate and index glossaries from various sources (including multiple, dated versions of a document), as well as translations. We are planning to send some news to the public list public-glossary@w3.org (to which the commenter could subscribe to get updates on the project, by the way) very soon now.

Accepted, "ultimate" is replaced with "ongoing".

Agreed, the phrase has been changed to read, "early detection and correction of unintentionally vague or contradictory language".

This has been fixed during the substantial rewrite of QA Framework: Introduction that resulted from issue #68. As a result of consolidation of similar parts, the 3.5.2 list is gone.

Agreed, the disparate sections been consolidated during the substantial rewrite of QA Framework: Introduction that resulted from issue #68.