Issues regarding the Last Call documents produced by the QA Working Group (QAWG) should be reported to the QAWG using the forms that are linked from the status sections of those documents. As a last resort, if you cannot use the forms for some reason, you can send mail to www-qa@w3.org (public archives). (The forms will put a copy on this email list and in the archives.)
Comments on this issues list should be sent to the www-qa@w3.org mailing list (Archives).
In this document,
num | Status | Spec | Topic | Class | Date | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LC-3 | Resolved | OpsGuide | OpsGuide | Substantive | 2003-02-23 | Committment Table and its CPs |
LC-83 | Resolved | OpsGuide | OpsGuide | Substantive | 2003-03-31 | Seven levels vs. Three |
LC-23 | Resolved | SpecGuide | SpecGuide | Substantive | 2003-03-11 | CP 1.4 vague |
LC-30 | Resolved | SpecGuide | SpecGuide | Substantive | 2003-03-11 | Profile, module, level |
LC-38 | Resolved | SpecGuide | SpecGuide | Substantive | 2003-03-11 | CP 9.1 and 9.2 combine |
LC-41 | Resolved | SpecGuide | SpecGuide | Substantive | 2003-03-11 | CP 4.4 derived profile |
LC-61 | Resolved | SpecGuide | SpecGuide | Substantive | 2003-03-14 | document product class |
LC-66 | Resolved | SpecGuide | SpecGuide | Substantive | 2003-03-14 | edition and version DoVs |
LC-79 | Resolved | SpecGuide | SpecGuide | Substantive | 2003-03-19 | SpecGL fails checkpoints 1.2 and 1.3 |
LC-84 | Resolved | SpecGuide | SpecGuide | Substantive | 2003-03-31 | Group dimensions of variability |
LC-93 | Resolved | SpecGuide | SpecGuide | Substantive | 2003-03-31 | Classes vs. categories |
LC-94 | Resolved | SpecGuide | SpecGuide | Substantive | 2003-03-31 | Loophole in Classes and Categories |
LC-97 | Resolved | SpecGuide | SpecGuide | Substantive | 2003-03-31 | Modules as extension points |
LC-98 | Resolved | SpecGuide | SpecGuide | Substantive | 2003-03-31 | Conformance levels |
LC-99 | Resolved | SpecGuide | SpecGuide | Substantive | 2003-03-31 | Awkward deprecation requirements |
LC-103 | Resolved | SpecGuide | SpecGuide | Substantive | 2003-03-31 | Distributed conformance section OK |
LC-106 | Resolved | SpecGuide | SpecGuide | Substantive | 2003-03-31 | Section 3.1 - Poor Defn of Normative |
LC-108 | Resolved | SpecGuide | SpecGuide | Substantive | 2003-03-31 | Definitions |
LC-109 | Resolved | SpecGuide | SpecGuide | Substantive | 2003-04-07 | Is CP1.3 needed? |
LC-4 | Resolved | SpecGuide | SpecGuide | Editorial | 2003-02-19 | no definition for unconditional conformance |
LC-2 | Resolved | SpecGuide | SpecGuide | Editorial | 2003-02-25 | Grammatical error in Scope |
LC-5 | Resolved | SpecGuide | SpecGuide | Editorial | 2003-03-11 | Ck 2.2 list of classes |
LC-6 | Resolved | SpecGuide | SpecGuide | Editorial | 2003-03-11 | Guideline 2, typo |
LC-7 | Resolved | SpecGuide | SpecGuide | Editorial | 2003-03-11 | Checkpoint 1.2 |
LC-8 | Resolved | SpecGuide | SpecGuide | Editorial | 2003-03-11 | checkpoint 1.1 |
LC-9 | Resolved | SpecGuide | SpecGuide | Editorial | 2003-03-11 | INTRODUCTION section 1.1, second bullet |
LC-11 | Resolved | SpecGuide | SpecGuide | Editorial | 2003-03-11 | CK 2.3 Category of object: clarification |
LC-12 | Resolved | SpecGuide | SpecGuide | Editorial | 2003-03-11 | section 3.4 Conformance definition |
LC-16 | Resolved | SpecGuide | SpecGuide | Editorial | 2003-03-11 | CP 8.4 clarify conformance requirement |
LC-18 | Resolved | SpecGuide | SpecGuide | Editorial | 2003-03-11 | GL 5 non-hierarchiacal modules |
LC-21 | Resolved | SpecGuide | SpecGuide | Editorial | 2003-03-11 | CP 2.4 - relationships of DOV - clarify |
LC-24 | Resolved | SpecGuide | SpecGuide | Editorial | 2003-03-11 | Introduction, Sect 1.4 |
LC-27 | Resolved | SpecGuide | SpecGuide | Editorial | 2003-03-11 | Typos, grammar, etc. |
LC-32 | Resolved | SpecGuide | SpecGuide | Editorial | 2003-03-11 | 4. Definitions |
LC-33 | Resolved | SpecGuide | SpecGuide | Editorial | 2003-03-11 | 4. Definitions |
LC-36 | Resolved | SpecGuide | SpecGuide | Editorial | 2003-03-11 | Section 3.1 Normative sections |
LC-44 | Resolved | SpecGuide | SpecGuide | Editorial | 2003-03-13 | Grammatical errors |
LC-45 | Resolved | SpecGuide | SpecGuide | Editorial | 2003-03-13 | Design goal of guidelines |
LC-46 | Resolved | SpecGuide | SpecGuide | Editorial | 2003-03-13 | Ambiguity |
LC-47 | Resolved | SpecGuide | SpecGuide | Editorial | 2003-03-13 | Spelling error in Example and Techniques |
LC-48 | Resolved | SpecGuide | SpecGuide | Editorial | 2003-03-13 | Categories of object not previously clearly defined |
LC-49 | Resolved | SpecGuide | SpecGuide | Editorial | 2003-03-13 | Complexity in explanation |
LC-50 | Resolved | SpecGuide | SpecGuide | Editorial | 2003-03-13 | Ambiguity or error? |
LC-51 | Resolved | SpecGuide | SpecGuide | Editorial | 2003-03-13 | GLs 4, 5 and 6 |
LC-52 | Resolved | SpecGuide | SpecGuide | Editorial | 2003-03-13 | NOT ? |
LC-53 | Resolved | SpecGuide | SpecGuide | Editorial | 2003-03-13 | Ambiguity |
LC-62 | Resolved | SpecGuide | SpecGuide | Editorial | 2003-03-14 | typos |
LC-63 | Resolved | SpecGuide | SpecGuide | Editorial | 2003-03-14 | Table of Contents |
LC-65 | Resolved | SpecGuide | SpecGuide | Editorial | 2003-03-14 | sentences and paragraphs (section 3.1) |
LC-85 | Resolved | SpecGuide | SpecGuide | Editorial | 2003-03-31 | Self-sufficient guidelines and checkpoints |
LC-86 | Resolved | SpecGuide | SpecGuide | Editorial | 2003-03-31 | Spelling, grammar, and style |
LC-87 | Resolved | SpecGuide | SpecGuide | Editorial | 2003-03-31 | Abbreviations |
LC-89 | Resolved | SpecGuide | SpecGuide | Editorial | 2003-03-31 | Consolidate glossary and terminology |
LC-90 | Resolved | SpecGuide | SpecGuide | Editorial | 2003-03-31 | Restructure DoV |
LC-92 | Resolved | SpecGuide | SpecGuide | Editorial | 2003-03-31 | Examples vs. Illustrations |
LC-71 | Active | IntroGuide | IntroGuide | Substantive | 2003-03-15 | Collected substantive & editorial comments |
LC-76 | Active | IntroGuide | IntroGuide | Substantive | 2003-03-19 | Collected substantive & editorial comments |
LC-68 | Active | IntroGuide | IntroGuide | Editorial | 2003-03-14 | Intro draft |
LC-69 | Active | IntroGuide | IntroGuide | Editorial | 2003-03-15 | Several comments on various parts of Introduction |
LC-43 | Active | OpsGuide | OpsGuide | Substantive | 2003-03-12 | OpsGL Appendix 1 - Process Document Template |
LC-57 | Active | OpsGuide | OpsGuide | Substantive | 2003-03-12 | GL and timeline of a document |
LC-58 | Active | OpsGuide | OpsGuide | Substantive | 2003-03-12 | Process Document requirement is too specific |
LC-56 | Active | OpsGuide | OpsGuide | Substantive | 2003-03-13 | Accessibility |
LC-60 | Active | OpsGuide | OpsGuide | Substantive | 2003-03-14 | Structure/Organization of Guidelines |
LC-70 | Active | OpsGuide | OpsGuide | Substantive | 2003-03-15 | Checklist format issue |
LC-72 | Active | OpsGuide | OpsGuide | Substantive | 2003-03-15 | Collected substantive & editorial comments |
LC-82 | Active | OpsGuide | OpsGuide | Substantive | 2003-03-19 | OpsGL fails SpecGL checkpoints 1.2 and 1.3 |
LC-110 | Active | OpsGuide | OpsGuide | Substantive | 2003-04-16 | Collected OpsGL comments from Team. |
LC-59 | Active | OpsGuide | OpsGuide | Editorial | 2003-03-12 | Testability concerns |
LC-17 | Active | SpecGuide | SpecGuide | Substantive | 2003-03-11 | CP 7.1 deprecated features |
LC-19 | Active | SpecGuide | SpecGuide | Substantive | 2003-03-11 | CP 4.4 explanation clarification |
LC-29 | Active | SpecGuide | SpecGuide | Substantive | 2003-03-11 | questions and suggestions |
LC-37 | Active | SpecGuide | SpecGuide | Substantive | 2003-03-11 | CP 9.3 |
LC-40 | Active | SpecGuide | SpecGuide | Substantive | 2003-03-11 | GL7 add obsolete features |
LC-67 | Active | SpecGuide | SpecGuide | Substantive | 2003-03-14 | limits of RFC 2119 key words |
LC-73 | Active | SpecGuide | SpecGuide | Substantive | 2003-03-15 | Collected substantive & editorial comments |
LC-74 | Active | SpecGuide | SpecGuide | Substantive | 2003-03-15 | Simplify & consolidate the guidelines of SpecGL |
LC-75 | Active | SpecGuide | SpecGuide | Substantive | 2003-03-16 | Comments on SpecGL Guidelines |
LC-77 | Active | SpecGuide | SpecGuide | Substantive | 2003-03-19 | Collected substantive & editorial comments |
LC-78 | Active | SpecGuide | SpecGuide | Substantive | 2003-03-19 | Should provide a disclaimer template |
LC-80 | Active | SpecGuide | SpecGuide | Substantive | 2003-03-19 | SpecGL should address the topic of CP applicability. |
LC-81 | Active | SpecGuide | SpecGuide | Substantive | 2003-03-19 | CP9.6 conformance requirements and rationale may be too narrow. |
LC-95 | Active | SpecGuide | SpecGuide | Substantive | 2003-03-31 | Why is conformance policy a DoV? |
LC-96 | Active | SpecGuide | SpecGuide | Substantive | 2003-03-31 | Priorities confusing |
LC-100 | Active | SpecGuide | SpecGuide | Substantive | 2003-03-31 | Don't discourage extensibility |
LC-101 | Active | SpecGuide | SpecGuide | Substantive | 2003-03-31 | Remove Checkpoint 9.6 |
LC-102 | Active | SpecGuide | SpecGuide | Substantive | 2003-03-31 | Consolidate G3 and G10. |
LC-104 | Active | SpecGuide | SpecGuide | Substantive | 2003-03-31 | Consolidate G11 with G3/G10 |
LC-105 | Active | SpecGuide | SpecGuide | Substantive | 2003-03-31 | G3, G10, G11, G13 |
LC-14 | Active | SpecGuide | SpecGuide | Editorial | 2003-03-11 | CP 14.1 - clarify conformance requirement |
LC-20 | Active | SpecGuide | SpecGuide | Editorial | 2003-03-11 | CP 3.1 Conformance Requirements - clarify |
LC-22 | Active | SpecGuide | SpecGuide | Editorial | 2003-03-11 | CP 2.3 placement of Checkpoint |
LC-25 | Active | SpecGuide | SpecGuide | Editorial | 2003-03-11 | Introduction: scope and goals |
LC-26 | Active | SpecGuide | SpecGuide | Editorial | 2003-03-11 | Multiple CPs - It is not applicable |
LC-28 | Active | SpecGuide | SpecGuide | Editorial | 2003-03-11 | document organization suggestions |
LC-34 | Active | SpecGuide | SpecGuide | Editorial | 2003-03-11 | Section 3.4 Conformance definition |
LC-35 | Active | SpecGuide | SpecGuide | Editorial | 2003-03-11 | Section 3.2 Extensibility |
LC-39 | Active | SpecGuide | SpecGuide | Editorial | 2003-03-11 | CP 8.4 policies for discretionary choices |
LC-42 | Active | SpecGuide | SpecGuide | Editorial | 2003-03-11 | GL3: contradiction? regarding examples |
LC-54 | Active | SpecGuide | SpecGuide | Editorial | 2003-03-13 | GLs 3, 10, 11, 12 and 13 |
LC-64 | Active | SpecGuide | SpecGuide | Editorial | 2003-03-14 | conformance terms |
LC-88 | Active | SpecGuide | SpecGuide | Editorial | 2003-03-31 | Reformat bullet list |
LC-91 | Active | SpecGuide | SpecGuide | Closed | 2003-03-31 | Complexity of numbering |
num | Spec | Date | Topic | Class | Status | Raised By | Owner |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LC-1 | SpecGuide | 2003-02-28 | SpecGuide | Substantive | Closed | Alex Rousskov | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: require a "Security Considerations" section | |||||||
Description: comment about "Overall" :
Any spec SHOULD have a Security Consideration section. Protocol or behavioral specs MUST have a Security Consideration section. Security sections make spec authors think about potential vulnerabilities and address at least some of them before the bad guys can exploit them. These sections are also a great place to warn implementors and users about most security-sensitive areas of the spec and, perhaps, common exploits. IETF's Internet Architecture Board has published the following Internet Draft that may be of use to SpecGL authors: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-iab-sec-cons-03.txt Discussed at 20030331 telecon. QAWG believes that the proposal has merit, but that specifying such requirements is outside of the scope of the QA Framework. Will be referred to appropriate W3C group or team. |
|||||||
Proposal: Require "Security Considerations" sections just like we already require conformance sections. | |||||||
Resolution: The proposal has merit, and should be addressed by W3C, but security requirements are outside of the scope of QA Framework. Will be referred to appropriate W3C group or team. | |||||||
LC-2 | SpecGuide | 2003-02-25 | SpecGuide | Editorial | Resolved | Stephanie Troeth | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: Grammatical error in Scope | |||||||
Description: comment about "Abstract, Status,..." :
"Section 3 defines explains how to make conformance claims that W3C TRs
satisfy the requirements of section 2. It defines conformance for this document"
It seems as if either 'defines' or 'explains' is meant, not both. The first sentence is grammatically incorrect, thus the intended meaning is unclear. The second sentence might seem superfluous, depending on the intended meaning of the first. |
|||||||
Proposal: | |||||||
Resolution: | |||||||
LC-3 | OpsGuide | 2003-02-23 | OpsGuide | Substantive | Resolved | lynne rosenthal | Lofton Henderson |
Title: Committment Table and its CPs | |||||||
Description: comment about "Guideline 1: Integrate Quality Assurance into Working Group
activities." :
Remove the Committment Table and CP1.1, 1.2, 1.3. These items do not add information and are redundant. To satisfy Level 3 (5 or 7), you must satisfy other checkpoints in the OpsGL. In fact, if we did our jobs right, Level 3 should equal Conformance Level A (satifying all P1), Level 5 should equal Level Double A, and Level 7 = Triple A. Isn't it a goal to get WGs to conform to the OpsGL? That would mean that they must satisfy all the P1 checkpoints. Thus, they must have a committment level to P1. So, why do we use a new term - Level 3. The Table introduces a DOV - called committment level. The OpsGL does not conform to the SpecGL's CPs that require DoVs to address the relationship to conformance, to other DoVs, etc. Email discussion , including proposed resolution. Discussed and resolved at 20030428 telecon and subsequent email . Table will be eliminated, and CP1.1 - 1.3 will be replaced. CP1.1 will require choice of A-AAA for OpsGL, choice of A-AAA for SpecGL, and choice of A-AAA for TestGL. Plus 1-2 additional CPs preserving the commitment to have some test materials. |
|||||||
Proposal: [Originator] Remove the Table and CP1.1, 1.2, 1.3.
An alternative to removing the Table is to amend it and move it to
either the Introduction section (prior to Guideline section) or an Appendix.
It should be amended by adding an additional column called, 'checkpoint'.
For each row, indicate the checkpoint that applies.
[LH] See email. Resolved per emailed final text. |
|||||||
Resolution: Per above, see emailed final text. | |||||||
LC-4 | SpecGuide | 2003-02-19 | SpecGuide | Editorial | Resolved | Olivier Thereaux | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: no definition for unconditional conformance | |||||||
Description: comment about "Overall" :
In the QAframe-spec glossary
(http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-qaframe-spec-20030210/#definitions) there is no definition
for the unconditional conformance term.
See subsequent email proposal, to remove empty (unused) definition. |
|||||||
Proposal: [Originator] add one? :) | |||||||
Resolution: Remove empty definition from SpecGL. (Add to "QA Glossary".) | |||||||
LC-5 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-11 | SpecGuide | Editorial | Resolved | Marc Hadley | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: Ck 2.2 list of classes | |||||||
Description: comment about "2.1 Identify all classes of product. " :
second conformance requirement refers to list of classes but
its not clear which list it is referring to. If it's the list under
guideline 2 then that list is non-exhaustive so requiring people to
use that list is somewhat limiting.
Discussed at 20030331 telecon, classified as editorial. |
|||||||
Proposal: [Proposed wording to be provided by SpecGL editors.] | |||||||
Resolution: | |||||||
LC-6 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-11 | SpecGuide | Editorial | Resolved | Marc Hadley | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: Guideline 2, typo | |||||||
Description: comment about "Guideline 2 Identify what needs to conform and how. " : thrid para - typo 'as either or produceser' remove 'or' | |||||||
Proposal: | |||||||
Resolution: | |||||||
LC-7 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-11 | SpecGuide | Editorial | Resolved | Marc Hadley | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: Checkpoint 1.2 | |||||||
Description: comment about "1.2 Illustrate what is in scope" :
Can use cases and examples be in a separate document from the main spec?
Discussed at 20030407 telecon. Resolved "yes", they can be in a separate document. Related LC example/use-case issues: 7, 23, 75.1, 77.ET-2, 79, 92, 109. |
|||||||
Proposal: | |||||||
Resolution: Yes, examples and use cases can be in a separate document. | |||||||
LC-8 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-11 | SpecGuide | Editorial | Resolved | Marc Hadley | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: checkpoint 1.1 | |||||||
Description: comment about "1.1 Include the scope of the specification" :
rather wooly conformance requirements
Previous email: ISO 'scope' definition; QAWG discussion thread. Discussed at 20030331 telecon, classified as editorial. Action. (Someone) request clarification from originator. |
|||||||
Proposal: [Proposed wording to be provided by SpecGL editors.] | |||||||
Resolution: | |||||||
LC-9 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-11 | SpecGuide | Editorial | Resolved | Marc Hadley | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: INTRODUCTION section 1.1, second bullet | |||||||
Description: comment about "Abstract, Status,..." :
Second sentence implies that all checkpoints must be
satisfied to comply with the guidelines wherease only priority
1 checkpoints are mandatory.
Discussed at 20030331 telecon, classified as editorial. |
|||||||
Proposal: [Proposed wording to be provided by SpecGL editors.] | |||||||
Resolution: | |||||||
LC-10 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-11 | SpecGuide | Editorial | Closed | Marc Hadley | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: Section 7 | |||||||
Description: comment about "Overall" : date for LC WD is in the future (or it was when the doc was published). | |||||||
Proposal: Reviewer used the WG version of the document and not the LC version of the SpecGL. Moot point. | |||||||
Resolution: | |||||||
LC-11 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-11 | SpecGuide | Editorial | Resolved | Marc Hadley | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: CK 2.3 Category of object: clarification | |||||||
Description: comment about "2.3 Identify which of the categories of object..." :
What is a category of object? The same as a class of product
Discussed at 20030331 telecon, classified as editorial. Email comments (20030417), including proposals. Discussed and resolved at 20030418 telecon. |
|||||||
Proposal: See email. Proposed wording to be provided by SpecGL editors. | |||||||
Resolution: The verbiage on classes and categories will be rewritten according to the 4-point proposal in email comments. [LR tentatively has drafting action.] | |||||||
LC-12 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-11 | SpecGuide | Editorial | Resolved | Marc Hadley | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: section 3.4 Conformance definition | |||||||
Description: comment about "Overall" :
Example - not true, see comment on 3.3
(LH clarification.) The example does not correspond to the requirements that are listed immediately before it -- apparently the latter were updated without updating the example. |
|||||||
Proposal: | |||||||
Resolution: Update the example to match the requirements. | |||||||
LC-13 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-11 | SpecGuide | Substantive | Closed | Marc Hadley | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: Section 3.3 Conformance and TAs | |||||||
Description: comment about "Overall" :
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.
Discussed at 20030331 telecon. QAWG agrees that SpecGL should be AAA-conformant to SpecGL, and commits to AAA conformance by Candidate Recommendation. Related LC TA-requirements issues: 13, 14, 29.4, 65, 67, 73.9, 75.9, [106?]. |
|||||||
Proposal: SpecGL MUST be AAA-conformant to SpecGL by Candidate Recommendation. | |||||||
Resolution: SpecGL MUST be AAA-conformant to SpecGL by Candidate Recommendation. | |||||||
LC-14 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-11 | SpecGuide | Editorial | Active | Marc Hadley | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: CP 14.1 - clarify conformance requirement | |||||||
Description: comment about "14.1 Provide test assertions" :
conformance requirements - is a separate document
OK or does this have to be in the same doc a the rest of the spec?
Related LC TA-requirements issues: 13, 14, 29.4, 65, 67, 73.9, 75.9, [106?]. |
|||||||
Proposal: | |||||||
Resolution: | |||||||
LC-15 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-11 | SpecGuide | Substantive | Closed | Marc Hadley | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: extensions | |||||||
Description: comment about "Guideline 9 Allow extensions or NOT!" :
A very well thought out section IMO.
Extension-group processing plan and subsequent email discussion. Related LC extensibility issues: 15, 29.5, 35, 37, 38, 52, 73.5, 73.6, 75.4, 81, [97?, ] 100, 101. |
|||||||
Proposal: Thanks to commentor, this is useful feedback on a controversial topic. | |||||||
Resolution: Closed (no issue). | |||||||
LC-16 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-11 | SpecGuide | Editorial | Resolved | Marc Hadley | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: CP 8.4 clarify conformance requirement | |||||||
Description: comment about "8.4 Promote consistent
handling of discretionary choices." :
conformance requirements not clear,
what does 'document the identified policies for handling discretionary choices' mean?
Discussed at 20030331 telecon, classified as editorial. Discussed at 20030410 telecon. AI given to DM (LH & DH assisting) to draft clarification. |
|||||||
Proposal: [Proposed wording to be provided by SpecGL editors.] Draft simple clarification, or remove if no QAWG consensus on the clarified text. | |||||||
Resolution: | |||||||
LC-17 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-11 | SpecGuide | Substantive | Active | Marc Hadley | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: CP 7.1 deprecated features | |||||||
Description: comment about "7.1 Identify each deprecated feature. " :
conformance requirements imply a single section for deprecated features -
is it not OK to include deprecations where they occur without a summary section?
(See subsequent email discussion.) |
|||||||
Proposal: | |||||||
Resolution: | |||||||
LC-18 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-11 | SpecGuide | Editorial | Resolved | Marc Hadley | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: GL 5 non-hierarchiacal modules | |||||||
Description: comment about "Guideline 5 Address the use of modules to divide the technology." :
Modules are non-hierarchiacal - can modules have dependencies on other modules?
If so, isn't this a hierarchy?
(See subsequent email discussion.) Discussed at 20030331 telecon, classified as editorial. |
|||||||
Proposal: [Proposed wording to be provided by SpecGL editors.] | |||||||
Resolution: | |||||||
LC-19 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-11 | SpecGuide | Substantive | Active | Marc Hadley | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: CP 4.4 explanation clarification | |||||||
Description: comment about "4.4 If profiles are chosen, address rules for profiles." : 'experience shows ... meets all the pertinent checkpoints of this document' - what experience? As this is not yet a crecommendation this seems like a rather strong statement. | |||||||
Proposal: | |||||||
Resolution: | |||||||
LC-20 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-11 | SpecGuide | Editorial | Active | Marc Hadley | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: CP 3.1 Conformance Requirements - clarify | |||||||
Description: comment about "3.1 any universal requirements for minimum functionality." : conformance requirements - only one section for this or are multiple O.K? | |||||||
Proposal: | |||||||
Resolution: | |||||||
LC-21 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-11 | SpecGuide | Editorial | Resolved | Marc Hadley | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: CP 2.4 - relationships of DOV - clarify | |||||||
Description: comment about "2.4 If there are several classes of products, define their relationships..." :
'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.
Email comments, including proposal (20030418). Discussed and resolved at 20030421 telecon. Related LC DoV issues: 21, 66, 75.3, 75.5, 84, 90, 95, 77.SG-1. |
|||||||
Proposal: See email. | |||||||
Resolution: This will be addressed in a subsection of the planned new chapter -- "2. Concepts". | |||||||
LC-22 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-11 | SpecGuide | Editorial | Active | Ian Jacobs | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: CP 2.3 placement of Checkpoint | |||||||
Description: comment about "2.3 Identify which of the categories of object..." : This checkpoint includes a requirement for "where in your specification," even though the intro says those requirements are limited to GL1 and GL10-14. | |||||||
Proposal: | |||||||
Resolution: | |||||||
LC-23 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-11 | SpecGuide | Substantive | Resolved | Ian Jacobs | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: CP 1.4 vague | |||||||
Description: comment about "1.4 Provide examples. " :
I think this checkpoint is too vague. Is it possible to break it down into a few more concrete requirements that are more verifiable? For instance:
While you may miss some cases, I think spec editors will find this more helpful than the general goal to "provide examples." Email discussion and discussed in 20030307 telecon. Alternatives:
Resolved in favor of a variation on Alt.2 (which might be what was meant by Alt.3?) -- the discussion and breakdown by category will be done in ExTech. But the Discussion of CP1.4 will mention the concept raised by comment originator (that different kinds of specification categories require different particular associated kinds of examples), and maybe even give a single brief "for example." Related LC example/use-case issues: 7, 23, 75.1, 77.ET-2, 79, 92, 109. |
|||||||
Proposal: Originator proposed Alt #1. | |||||||
Resolution: Resolved in favor of modified Alt 2. Details tbd. | |||||||
LC-24 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-11 | SpecGuide | Editorial | Resolved | Ian Jacobs | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: Introduction, Sect 1.4 | |||||||
Description: comment about "Overall" : last para: Pubrules and the MoS aren't really specifications. What about "resources?" | |||||||
Proposal: | |||||||
Resolution: | |||||||
LC-25 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-11 | SpecGuide | Editorial | Active | Ian Jacobs | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: Introduction: scope and goals | |||||||
Description: comment about "Overall" :
Section 1.1 Last paragraph
I think the previous paragraph doesn't belong here; it could be deleted or moved to the status section (after some editorial fixes). |
|||||||
Proposal: | |||||||
Resolution: | |||||||
LC-26 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-11 | SpecGuide | Editorial | Active | Ian Jacobs | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: Multiple CPs - It is not applicable | |||||||
Description: comment about "Overall" :
CP 2.4, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 5.1, 5.2, 6.1, 7.1, 7.2,
7.4, 7.5, 8.1, 8.3, 9.2, 9.4, 9.5, 9.6,
Suggest that the statment "It is not applicable if..." be labeled as "Normative inclusion/exclusion" as in UAAG 1.0 Email discussion, including proposal. Related LC applicability/normative-exclusion issues: 26, 28, 73.2, 80. |
|||||||
Proposal: | |||||||
Resolution: | |||||||
LC-27 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-11 | SpecGuide | Editorial | Resolved | Ian Jacobs | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: Typos, grammar, etc. | |||||||
Description: comment about "Overall" :
GL 3, 2md para, Remove: "Overall, the intent of the WG should be clear" This doesn't add anything
CP 7.1, 7.4, 7.5 ConfReq, last sentence: change 'is' to 'are' in "...if there is no deprecated feature" CP8.4 Rationale: change 'identifying' to 'identify' CP9.1, last para: "This is strict conformance" is a repeat of text in intro of GL9 CP 11.4, last para: modify "proper use of the conformance icons" to "proper use of any conformance icons" GL13, last para: suggest switching the order of Manual of Style and PubRules |
|||||||
Proposal: | |||||||
Resolution: | |||||||
LC-28 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-11 | SpecGuide | Editorial | Active | Ian Jacobs | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: document organization suggestions | |||||||
Description: comment about "Overall" :
Adopt the UAAG 1.0 approach of separating requirements
from applicability exclusions (called "normative inclusions/exclusions" in UAAG 1.0).
Use style sheets to hide links (e.g., to examples and techniques) for printed version.
Discussed at 20030331 telecon, classified as editorial. Email discussion, including proposal. Related LC applicability/normative-exclusion issues: 26, 28, 73.2, 80. |
|||||||
Proposal: [Proposed wording to be provided by SpecGL editors.] | |||||||
Resolution: | |||||||
LC-29 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-11 | SpecGuide | Substantive | Active | Ian Jacobs | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: questions and suggestions | |||||||
Description: comment about "Overall" :
Extension-group processing plan and subsequent email discussion. Related LC extensibility issues: 15, 29.5, 35, 37, 38, 52, 73.5, 73.6, 75.4, 81, [97?, ] 100, 101. Related LC TA-requirements issues: 13, 14, 29.4, 65, 67, 73.9, 75.9, [106?]. |
|||||||
Proposal: | |||||||
Resolution: | |||||||
LC-30 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-11 | SpecGuide | Substantive | Resolved | Ian Jacobs | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: Profile, module, level | |||||||
Description: comment about "Overall" :
I am struggling to understand a sharp distinction between profile,
module, and level. They are all mechanisms for defining and labeling a
set of technical requirements. I have the feeling guidelines 4, 5, and
6 could be combined, and the requirements rephrased "Whatever
subsetting mechanism you use..."
Discussed at 20030410 telecon. Disagreement about keeping or merging the concepts. AIs given to: draft a proposal merge the concepts; survey the usage of the terms and concepts in W3C specs. There is email discussion of the issue group here, and see also numerous related messages nearby on the same list. Discussed and resolved at 20030428 telecon. QAWG agrees that clarification is needed. The solution for the whole profile/module/level issue group is:
Previous profile/module/level QAWG issues: 73, 74, 75, 76. Related LC profile/module/level issues: 30, 41, 49, 50, 51, 97, 98. |
|||||||
Proposal: Email proposal. | |||||||
Resolution: See above solution. Agreed to clarify concepts with better definitions and discussion, and to merge the three separate guidelines into a single guideline. However the 3 individual concepts will be kept separate within the checkpoints. | |||||||
LC-31 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-11 | SpecGuide | Editorial | Closed | Ian Jacobs | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: general | |||||||
Description: comment about "Overall" :
General comments/conformance model I think the document is well-organized, clearly written, and very helpful. Having spent a lot of time thinking about conformance issues (notably for UAAG 1.0), I thought it covered a lot of ground and did so well. I like the distinction between requirements that relate to the conformance model and those that involve implementing the model in the spec. |
|||||||
Proposal: Thanks to commentor. This is useful feedback. | |||||||
Resolution: Closed (no issue). | |||||||
LC-32 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-11 | SpecGuide | Editorial | Resolved | Ian Jacobs | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: 4. Definitions | |||||||
Description: comment about "Overall" :
unconditional conformance --
This is used in HTTP. It means "all requirements met."
See subsequent email proposal, to remove empty (unused) definition. |
|||||||
Proposal: [LH] Remove empty (unused) definition. | |||||||
Resolution: Remove empty definition from SpecGL. (Add to "QA Glossary".) | |||||||
LC-33 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-11 | SpecGuide | Editorial | Resolved | Ian Jacobs | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: 4. Definitions | |||||||
Description: comment about "Overall" :
"deprecated --
An existing feature that has become outdated by a newer construct or is no longer viable.
Deprecated features should not be used"
Hmm, "used" may not be a specific enough term. A spec may encourage a UA to support a feature, but discourage an author from producing it. and may be removed in some future version. See email discussion. Discussed at 20030410 telecon. Resolved: agree with the suggested clarifications, will make appropriate changes. |
|||||||
Proposal: | |||||||
Resolution: Agree to clarify language to resolve originator's issue. [Tbd] | |||||||
LC-34 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-11 | SpecGuide | Editorial | Active | Ian Jacobs | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: Section 3.4 Conformance definition | |||||||
Description: comment about "Overall" : " A checkpoint is satisfied by satisfying all of the individual @@conformance requirements@@. Failing one individual mandatory requirement means that the checkpoint is not satisfied." Is previous sentence required? | |||||||
Proposal: | |||||||
Resolution: | |||||||
LC-35 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-11 | SpecGuide | Editorial | Active | Ian Jacobs | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: Section 3.2 Extensibility | |||||||
Description: comment about "Overall" :
"...to this specification MUST not contradict
nor negate the requirements of this specification."
Delete previous statement per comment in checkpoint 9.3.
Extension-group processing plan and subsequent email discussion. Related LC extensibility issues: 15, 29.5, 35, 37, 38, 52, 73.5, 73.6, 75.4, 81, [97?, ] 100, 101. |
|||||||
Proposal: | |||||||
Resolution: | |||||||
LC-36 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-11 | SpecGuide | Editorial | Resolved | Ian Jacobs | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: Section 3.1 Normative sections | |||||||
Description: comment about "Overall" :
Is the glossary normative?
Discussed at 20030410 telecon. See also subsequent email thread. Generally resolved that our (sec.4) definition of "normative" is okay, but it is different than some others use (e.g., UAAG), involving the notion that normative text is directly connected to conformance requirements. By our definition, things like Glossary and Priorities definitions are NOT normative. |
|||||||
Proposal: SpecGL uses a more focused definition of normative -- normative stuff is directly connected to conformance requirements. See proposals in email, to help clarify the definition and its usage in SpecGL. Per 20030414 telecon, MS will draft an addition to the definition of normative to clarify this. | |||||||
Resolution: | |||||||
LC-37 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-11 | SpecGuide | Substantive | Active | Ian Jacobs | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: CP 9.3 | |||||||
Description: comment about "9.3 Prevent extensions
from contradicting the specification." :
I think checkpoint 9.3 should be deleted.
I think that it's straightforward that if the spec says "A"
and someone else says "not A," then anyone that does "not A" doesn't
conform.
Extension-group processing plan and subsequent email discussion. Related LC extensibility issues: 15, 29.5, 35, 37, 38, 52, 73.5, 73.6, 75.4, 81, [97?, ] 100, 101. |
|||||||
Proposal: | |||||||
Resolution: | |||||||
LC-38 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-11 | SpecGuide | Substantive | Resolved | Ian Jacobs | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: CP 9.1 and 9.2 combine | |||||||
Description: comment about "9.1 Indicate if the specification is
extensible." :
I think checkpoints 9.1 and 9.2 should be combined into one.
Discussed at 20030407 telecon. Agreed that they should be combined. Details tbd by SpecGL editors. Related LC extensibility issues: 15, 29.5, 35, 37, 38, 52, 73.5, 73.6, 75.4, 81, [97?, ] 100, 101. |
|||||||
Proposal: Combine CP 9.1 and 9.2. | |||||||
Resolution: Combine CP9.1 and 9.2, details tbd. | |||||||
LC-39 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-11 | SpecGuide | Editorial | Active | Ian Jacobs | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: CP 8.4 policies for discretionary choices | |||||||
Description: comment about "8.4 Promote consistent handling of
discretionary choices." :
Can "document the identified policies" be simplified?
Discussed at 20030331 telecon, classified as editorial. Discussed at 20030410 telecon. AI given to DM (LH & DH assisting) to draft clarification. |
|||||||
Proposal: [Proposed wording to be provided by SpecGL editors.] Draft simple clarification, or remove if no QAWG consensus on the clarified text. | |||||||
Resolution: | |||||||
LC-40 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-11 | SpecGuide | Substantive | Active | Ian Jacobs | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: GL7 add obsolete features | |||||||
Description: comment about "Guideline 7 Identify the relation between
deprecated features and conformance." :
I think it's also important to identify obsolete features and provide
althernatives to them. E.g., HTML 4.0 obsoleted a few elements.
See email thread. Discussed at 20030410 telecon. No general consensus yet. There were differing views on what obsolete means (is it closer to deprecation or to removal)? The nature of the HTML example needs to be looked at. LR takes action to discuss with originator, look at HTML, draft proposal for QAWG discussion. |
|||||||
Proposal: | |||||||
Resolution: | |||||||
LC-41 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-11 | SpecGuide | Substantive | Resolved | Ian Jacobs | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: CP 4.4 derived profile | |||||||
Description: comment about "4.4 If profiles are chosen, address rules
for profiles." :
What is the definition of a derived profile?
There is email discussion of the issue group here, and see also numerous related messages nearby on the same list. Discussed and resolved at 20030428 telecon. See the description of the solution for the profile/module/level issue group, in LC issue 30. Previous profile/module/level QAWG issues: 73, 74, 75, 76. Related LC profile/module/level issues: 30, 41, 49, 50, 51, 97, 98. |
|||||||
Proposal: | |||||||
Resolution: "Derived profile" will be defined as part of the solution for the profile/module/level issue group. | |||||||
LC-42 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-11 | SpecGuide | Editorial | Active | Ian Jacobs | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: GL3: contradiction? regarding examples | |||||||
Description: comment about "Guideline 3 Specify conformance policy. " : last para, last sentence: Does "possibly provide examples" conflict with MUST provide examples of 1.4? | |||||||
Proposal: | |||||||
Resolution: | |||||||
LC-43 | OpsGuide | 2003-03-12 | OpsGuide | Substantive | Active | Peter Fawcett | Lofton Henderson |
Title: OpsGL Appendix 1 - Process Document Template | |||||||
Description: comment about "Overall" :
|
|||||||
Proposal: | |||||||
Resolution: | |||||||
LC-44 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-13 | SpecGuide | Editorial | Resolved | Stephanie Troeth | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: Grammatical errors | |||||||
Description: comment about "1.1 Include the scope of the specification" :
"
This document is applied and conformance (to this document) achieved as new TRs are being written." (grammatically incorrect, intended meaning unclear) This document applies to new TRs and conformance (to this document) is achieved as they are being written. As for legacy specification, they may indirectly comply with the spirit or intent of some checkpoints, without actually satisfying all requirements in those checkpoints. (grammatical/spelling error) "legacy specifications" Within this Specification Guidelines document, the term "specifications' is specifically limited to W3C Technical Reports, even though these guidelines could be applied to other documents. (unbalanced quote marks) |
|||||||
Proposal: | |||||||
Resolution: | |||||||
LC-45 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-13 | SpecGuide | Editorial | Resolved | Stephanie Troeth | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: Design goal of guidelines | |||||||
Description: comment about "1.2 Illustrate what is in scope" : 1.2 Class of Product and Audience -- "It is a design goal of these guidelines the WGs can apply them in a common-sense and workable manner." | |||||||
Proposal: These guidelines are designed so that the WGs can apply .... | |||||||
Resolution: | |||||||
LC-46 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-13 | SpecGuide | Editorial | Resolved | Stephanie Troeth | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: Ambiguity | |||||||
Description: comment about "Guideline 2 Identify what needs to conform and how. " :
I'm finding it difficult to follow which terms are reserved for 'classes of products'. The word 'consumer' is used to describe the classes of products, and itself is listed within the classes of products. For example, I find the following sentence semantically confusing: "For a processor-type specification, the processor is the consumer of an XML vocabulary defined in the specification." "For content-type specifications, there may be one or more consumers that take the content and 'play' it in some way." "Play" refers to a media player, or play refers to "process" ? Divide this (enumerated) list into processor, consumer, or content? Make the terminology in this area unique, so that there will be no ambiguity? (It could be that the terminology is already unique, but in its current format, I can't be sure.) Email comments (20030417), including proposals. Discussed and resolved at 20030418 telecon. Rewrite the GL verbiage for clarification. The detail about sub-dividing the list of classes is to be decided by SpecGL editors during rewrite of the verbiage. |
|||||||
Proposal: See email. | |||||||
Resolution: The verbiage on classes and categories will be rewritten according to the 4-point proposal in email comments. The detail about sub-dividing the list of classes is to be decided by SpecGL editors during rewrite of the verbiage. [LR tentatively has drafting action.] | |||||||
LC-47 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-13 | SpecGuide | Editorial | Resolved | Stephanie Troeth | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: Spelling error in Example and Techniques | |||||||
Description: comment about "2.2 For each class of product, define the conformance requirements. " : Spelling error in corresponding example and techniques: http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2003/02/qaframe-spec-extech-20030203#Ck-define-scope "XHTML", not "XHML" :) | |||||||
Proposal: | |||||||
Resolution: | |||||||
LC-48 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-13 | SpecGuide | Editorial | Resolved | Stephanie Troeth | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: Categories of object not previously clearly defined | |||||||
Description: comment about "2.3
Identify which of the categories of object..." :
"Checkpoint 2.3. Identify which of the categories of object are specified in the document as a whole. [Priority 3]" Reader should be able to understand what 'categories of object' are upon reference - this is the first instance that this phrase is used in this document. Even though a URI is provided to the applicable definition of 'categories of object', the definition itself should introduce the list with this phrase. Eg: "Most specifications can be classified into one of the following categories of object ..." Discussed at 20030418 telecon. Discussed and resolved at 20030418 telecon. Rewrite the GL verbiage for clarification. "Categories of object" will be replaced by the standard terminology, "specification category". |
|||||||
Proposal: See email. | |||||||
Resolution: The verbiage on classes and categories will be rewritten according to the 4-point proposal in email comments. [LR tentatively has drafting action.] | |||||||
LC-49 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-13 | SpecGuide | Editorial | Resolved | Stephanie Troeth | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: Complexity in explanation | |||||||
Description: comment about "Guideline 4 Address the use
of profiles to divide the technology." :
I can't understand what 'profile' means by this explanation;
this should perhaps be simplified?
Discussed at 20030410 telecon. There is email discussion of the issue group here, and see also numerous related messages nearby on the same list. Discussed and resolved at 20030428 telecon. See the description of the solution for the profile/module/level issue group, in LC issue 30. Previous profile/module/level QAWG issues: 73, 74, 75, 76. Related LC profile/module/level issues: 30, 41, 49, 50, 51, 97, 98. |
|||||||
Proposal: | |||||||
Resolution: The definition and illustration of the "profile" concept will be improved as part of the solution for the profile/module/level issue group. | |||||||
LC-50 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-13 | SpecGuide | Editorial | Resolved | Stephanie Troeth | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: Ambiguity or error? | |||||||
Description: comment about "4.1 Indicate whether or not
the use of profiles is mandatory..." :
"For example, is content required to conform to one
of the profiles, or is there a concept of conformance of content
independent of conformance to one of the profiles?"
Ambiguity or error? (I count four 'of's in the second clause! :D) There is email discussion of the issue group here, and see also numerous related messages nearby on the same list. Discussed and resolved at 20030428 telecon. See the description of the solution for the profile/module/level issue group, in LC issue 30. Previous profile/module/level QAWG issues: 73, 74, 75, 76. Related LC profile/module/level issues: 30, 41, 49, 50, 51, 97, 98. |
|||||||
Proposal: | |||||||
Resolution: The specific editorial problem will be examined and fixed as part of the implementation of the solution for the profile/module/level issue group. | |||||||
LC-51 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-13 | SpecGuide | Editorial | Resolved | Stephanie Troeth | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: GLs 4, 5 and 6 | |||||||
Description: comment about "Overall" :
Explanations for profiles, modules and functional levels are vague.
Use diagrams for examples ?
Discussed at 20030410 telecon. There is email discussion of the issue group here, and see also numerous related messages nearby on the same list. Discussed and resolved at 20030428 telecon. See the description of the solution for the profile/module/level issue group, in LC issue 30. Note that the specific suggestion to use diagrams was not addressed (SpecGL editors?). Previous profile/module/level QAWG issues: 73, 74, 75, 76. Related LC profile/module/level issues: 30, 41, 49, 50, 51, 97, 98. |
|||||||
Proposal: | |||||||
Resolution: The definitions and illustrations of the three concepts -- profiles, modules, and levels -- are to be improved as part of the implementation of the solution for the profile/module/level issue group. [Note to SpecGL editors: use of diagram(s) is tbd.] | |||||||
LC-52 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-13 | SpecGuide | Editorial | Resolved | Stephanie Troeth | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: NOT ? | |||||||
Description: comment about "Guideline 9 Allow extensions or NOT!" :
'NOT!' seems rather uncharacteristic and out of line with
regards to the remaining document. What about simply "Not" ?
Extension-group processing plan and subsequent email discussion. Related LC extensibility issues: 15, 29.5, 35, 37, 38, 52, 73.5, 73.6, 75.4, 81, [97?, ] 100, 101. |
|||||||
Proposal: | |||||||
Resolution: Resolved, change "NOT!" to "not." | |||||||
LC-53 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-13 | SpecGuide | Editorial | Resolved | Stephanie Troeth | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: Ambiguity | |||||||
Description: comment about "Overall" : 1.3 Motivation and Expected Benefits (Introduction) -- "Providing requirements and definitions about conformance topics, as well as guidance in the structure and anatomy of specifications, will foster a mutual understanding among developers of specifications, implementations, and conformance test materials." (Comment: meaning is ambiguous) "foster a mutual understanding among developers about ..." | |||||||
Proposal: | |||||||
Resolution: | |||||||
LC-54 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-13 | SpecGuide | Editorial | Active | Stephanie Troeth | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: GLs 3, 10, 11, 12 and 13 | |||||||
Description: comment about "Overall" :
These are all guidelines which refer specifically to conformance.
Would it make more sense to number these sequentially (in order to group
them together), rather than having the big gap between 3 and 10 ?
Related LC major-restructure issues: 54, 74, 75.2, 75.3, 75.7, 75.8, 102, 104, 105. |
|||||||
Proposal: | |||||||
Resolution: | |||||||
LC-55 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-13 | SpecGuide | Substantive | Closed | Jon Gunderson | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: Accessibility | |||||||
Description: comment about "Overall" :
Specifications should have a section
or the ability to highligh the features of the specification
that benefit people with disabilities.
Discussed at 20030331 telecon. QAWG believes that the proposal has merit, but that specifying accessibility requirements is outside of the scope of the QA Framework. It more appropriately belongs in pubrules. Will be referred to Comm team. |
|||||||
Proposal: Include a requirement that a specification have a section summarizing the accessibility features of the specification | |||||||
Resolution: Specifying accessibility requirements is outside of the scope of the QA Framework. It more appropriately belongs in Pubrules. This proposal will be referred to Comm team. | |||||||
LC-56 | OpsGuide | 2003-03-13 | OpsGuide | Substantive | Active | Jon Gunderson | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: Accessibility | |||||||
Description: comment about "Overall" :
QA test suites should also include tests that test the accessibility
features of a specification based on the accessibility requirements found in
other W3C documents. This may require having a specific person in charge of
defining and monitoring the inclusion of accessibility features.
See previous QAWG issue 102. Email discussion, including proposed resolution. |
|||||||
Proposal: [Originator] Include a requirement in the Operation Guidelines for a person
to be responsible for accessibility tests of a specification.
[LH] See email. |
|||||||
Resolution: | |||||||
LC-57 | OpsGuide | 2003-03-12 | OpsGuide | Substantive | Active | Dominique Hazael-Massieux | Lofton Henderson |
Title: GL and timeline of a document | |||||||
Description: comment about "Overall" :
most guidelines are only applicable at some point in the WG's life,
but the GL don't identify this aspect: this is something that absolutely needs
to be stressed, and could even be used as a strategy to organize the GL as a
whole, e.g. what you need to do before starting a WG, what needs to be done
when you start developing a new spec, what needs to be done when you envision
building a test suite, etc.
Email discussion, including proposals. |
|||||||
Proposal: [Originator] at least, provide a section (an image?)
linking the GL or the CP to the milestones of a WG life
[LH] See email (essentially same as Originator's). |
|||||||
Resolution: | |||||||
LC-58 | OpsGuide | 2003-03-12 | OpsGuide | Substantive | Active | Dominique Hazael-Massieux | Lofton Henderson |
Title: Process Document requirement is too specific | |||||||
Description: comment about "Overall" : a WG should still be able to comply to a CP without having a QA Process Document. | |||||||
Proposal: replace QA process document references by a documented WG decision? | |||||||
Resolution: | |||||||
LC-59 | OpsGuide | 2003-03-12 | OpsGuide | Editorial | Active | Dominique Hazael-Massieux | Lofton Henderson |
Title: Testability concerns | |||||||
Description: comment about "Overall" :
The following expressions seemed either hard to apply or to test:
|
|||||||
Proposal: | |||||||
Resolution: | |||||||
LC-60 | OpsGuide | 2003-03-14 | OpsGuide | Substantive | Active | Patrick Curran | Lofton Henderson |
Title: Structure/Organization of Guidelines | |||||||
Description: comment about "Overall" :
Comments on the structure and organization of the guidelines
and checkpoints of SpecGL.
For LC-60.3 through LC-60.15, see email, including some proposals. |
|||||||
Proposal: [Originator] I think we have approximately the right checkpoints, but I
think they would be easier to understand if they were grouped chronologically.
A possible set of guidelines might be:
|
|||||||
Resolution: | |||||||
LC-61 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-14 | SpecGuide | Substantive | Resolved | Susan Lesch | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: document product class | |||||||
Description: comment about "Guideline 2 Identify what needs to conform and how. " :
Guideline 2 could give "document" and "resource" either as
product classes or as examples of the "content" class. (Checkpoint 2.1
does finally mention "document.")
Email comments (20030417). Discussed at 20030418 telecon. Discussed and resolved at 20030418 telecon. We don't see documents and resources as examples of 'content' class (perhaps some better definition of 'content' class is needed?). We agreed that a 'specification' class should be added. |
|||||||
Proposal: See email. | |||||||
Resolution: Add a 'specification' class. [LR tentatively has drafting action -- do this as part of issue 11, 46, 48, 93 solution.] | |||||||
LC-62 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-14 | SpecGuide | Editorial | Resolved | Susan Lesch | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: typos | |||||||
Description: comment about "Overall" :
In section 3.3, s/This Operational Guidelines document/This
Specification Guidelines document/
In the guideline title and table of contents entry for Guideline 12 and in 3.4 last par., "pro forma" is two words. The table of contents link to section 3.1 is broken. (These probably have been reported by now but just in case.) |
|||||||
Proposal: | |||||||
Resolution: | |||||||
LC-63 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-14 | SpecGuide | Editorial | Resolved | Susan Lesch | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: Table of Contents | |||||||
Description: comment about "Overall" :
Would the table of contents in QA Framework specs that have
guidelines be easier to follow if non-Guideline sections all appeared
by number in the table of contents? E.g. "3. Conformance"
could be followed by "3.1 Normative sections" rather than by "1.
Normative sections"? The difference between for example "checkpoint 1.1"
and "section 1.1" (both about scope) then would be distinct and easier
to talk about.
Discussed at 20030407 telecon. Agreed to implement suggested change -- subsections in TOC will be numbered N.M (M=1,2...), instead of just M. |
|||||||
Proposal: Subsections in TOC will be numbered N.M (M=1,2...), instead of just M. | |||||||
Resolution: Subsections in TOC will be numbered N.M (M=1,2...), instead of just M. | |||||||
LC-64 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-14 | SpecGuide | Editorial | Active | Susan Lesch | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: conformance terms | |||||||
Description: comment about "3.2 If special conformance terms are used,
include a definition..." :
Checkpoint 3.2 says: "the specification MUST be defined, either by reference
or by including the definition in the text." Did you mean to say that the whole
spec is considered to be "defined" through references and definitions? In that
case, please ignore this comment.
Email discussion, including proposal for closure. |
|||||||
Proposal: Could read something like: "terms used to describe conformance MUST be defined, either by reference or by including the definition in the text." (I'm afraid "conformance terms..." might mean you'd have to define "terms.") | |||||||
Resolution: | |||||||
LC-65 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-14 | SpecGuide | Editorial | Resolved | Susan Lesch | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: sentences and paragraphs (section 3.1) | |||||||
Description: comment about "Overall" :
In section 3.1, "sentences" becomes "typically, one paragraph...."
Is a sentence containing an RFC 2119 key word a unit of being normative, or
do you mean that a paragraph containing such a sentence is or can be the unit?
I'm not sure if it is important to draw a line. Section 4's definition of
normative says "text in a specification which is prescriptive or contains
conformance requirements" which seems to mean any text with no boundaries
(for example, like section, chapter, slice).
Discussed at 20030410 telecon. See also subsequent email thread. Agreed that section 3.1 has some problems that will be fixed: it is not comprehensive (omits some normative stuff); and has misleading characterization of what is normative. We note that SpecGL's definition of normative (sec.4) is more focused than some other use, and it does not qualify a Glossary as normative, for example. Related LC whats-normative issues: 36, 65, 106, 108. Related LC TA-requirements issues: 13, 14, 29.4, 65, 67, 73.9, 75.9, [106?]. |
|||||||
Proposal: | |||||||
Resolution: Improve the language in section 3.1, and make sure that its "what's normative" list is complete. Terms normative and informative to be linked to (sec.4) definitions. [Tbd, by LR.] Per 20030414 telecon, MS to draft addition to definition of normative, to help clarify its focus on direct connection to conformance requirements. | |||||||
LC-66 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-14 | SpecGuide | Substantive | Resolved | Susan Lesch | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: edition and version DoVs | |||||||
Description: comment about "Overall" :
Guidelines 4-6 and the section 4 definitions are great
descriptions of profiles, modules, and levels, thanks.
Are "editions" and "versions" DoVs?
If for example, a requirement changed between Version 1.0
and Version 1.1 of some specification, so that a 1.0 processor
could not read 1.1, that might be a "variability."
Email discussion (20030331). Email discussion (20030417). Email comments, including proposal (20030418). Discussed at 20030421 telecon, resolved per email proposal. Related LC DoV issues: 21, 66, 75.3, 75.5, 84, 90, 95, 77.SG-1. |
|||||||
Proposal: [Originator] If you think edition and version do matter, they could be addressed in section 1.8, or in a separate Guideline. [LR] See email proposal. [LH] See email. | |||||||
Resolution: Per email proposal, version and edition are not DoV. DoV are concerned with conformance to a single, specific version/edition of a specification at a time. [Detail TBD -- will SpecGL clarify this about the scope of DoV, in the new chapter, "2. Concepts"?] | |||||||
LC-67 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-14 | SpecGuide | Substantive | Active | Susan Lesch | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: limits of RFC 2119 key words | |||||||
Description: comment about "13.1 Use conformance key words." :
"the specification MUST use RFC 2119 keywords to denote whether
or not requirements are mandatory, optional, or suggested" is Priority 1.
Must all testable statements and or test assertions (sorry I'm not clear on
the difference between them and maybe that needs to be clarified, too)
contain RFC 2119 key words?
RFC 2119 [1] section "6. Guidance in the use of these Imperatives" puts limits their use. (I mentioned this to the QAWG about a year ago.) They musn't be used only to ask implementers to do something a Working Group would like to see. Email discussion (20030418). Discussed and resolved 2nd part -- guidance about RFC keyword usage -- at 20030421 telecon. Resolved: SpecGL won't try to legislate correct use of RFC2199 keywords. SpecET (Examples & Techniques) will mention that correct-use guidance is given in Section 6 of RFC2119, and point to it. There is concern that quoting the particular wording of RFC2119 -- with reflects a particular perspective (communications & protocols) and orientation -- "muddies the water" in some contexts. QAWG thinks that it would be useful to investigate a joint Comm-QAWG project to draft a guidance Note on this topic. Subsequent to resolution of 2nd part, additional comments & discussion occurred on QAIG list. (While apparently not changing the resolution, it may require more explanation of our rationale, in response to commenters.)The 1st part -- must every conformance requirement use RFC2119 keywords -- is still tbd. (Note counter example in UAAG 1.0: "This document demands substantially more conformance flexibility than can be achieved using the terms "must", "should", and "may" alone, as defined in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. Where "must", "should", "required", and "may" appear in this document, they are used consistently with RFC 2119 for a chosen conformance profile. The imperative voice (e.g., "Allow configuration ...") used in the checkpoint provisions implies "must", but a user agent is only obligated to satisfy the requirements of a chosen conformance profile." Related LC TA-requirements issues: 13, 14, 29.4, 65, 67, 73.9, 75.9, [106?]. |
|||||||
Proposal: [Originator] One way to solve this is to quote or paraphrase and link to the RFC.
"Imperatives of the type defined in this memo must be used with care and sparingly. In particular, they MUST only be used where it is actually required for interoperation or to limit behavior which has potential for causing harm (e.g., limiting retransmisssions) For example, they must not be used to try to impose a particular method on implementors where the method is not required for interoperability." [LH] See email proposal: don't legislate it in SpecGL; develop a Note about it and reference that from SpecET. |
|||||||
Resolution: 2nd part: SpecGL won't try to legislate correct use of RFC2199 keywords. SpecET (Examples & Techniques) will mention that correct-use guidance is given in Section 6 of RFC2119, and point to it. There is concern that quoting the particular wording of RFC2119 -- with reflects a particular perspective (communications & protocols) and orientation -- "muddies the water" in some contexts. QAWG thinks that it would be useful to investigate a joint Comm-QAWG project to draft a guidance Note on this topic. | |||||||
LC-68 | IntroGuide | 2003-03-14 | IntroGuide | Editorial | Active | Susan Lesch | Lofton Henderson |
Title: Intro draft | |||||||
Description: comment about "General: miscellaneous & other" : I found Ian Jacob's SpecGL edits [1] in your archive and would like to send ideas for the QA Framework Introduction. I expect they will be ready at [2] by 14 March 24:00 Pacific. | |||||||
Proposal: Use or not, as you see fit. As this is my last Last Call comment, I just want to say that it must have been a monumental task to put the framework together. You've made it look elegant, and easy to use. Best wishes for your project. | |||||||
Resolution: | |||||||
LC-69 | IntroGuide | 2003-03-15 | IntroGuide | Editorial | Active | Colleen Evans | Lofton Henderson |
Title: Several comments on various parts of Introduction | |||||||
Description: comment about "General: miscellaneous & other" :
[Entered into form by LH. Some are significant
editorial, but all are classified as "Editorial" because there are
no conformance implications or suggestions for major document reorganization.]
Review comments:
|
|||||||
Proposal: | |||||||
Resolution: | |||||||
LC-70 | OpsGuide | 2003-03-15 | OpsGuide | Substantive | Active | Phill Jenkins | Lofton Henderson |
Title: Checklist format issue | |||||||
Description: comment about "Overall" :
[Entered into form by LH. Comment applies to Checklists of
SpecGL and TestGL as well OpsGL.]
I have noticed a number of "checklists" being proliferated on the W3C pages. I have a strong recommendation for improving the adaptability of the checklist format - namely the number of column in the layout. For example, today most have a column for the number of the checkpoint, the description of the checkpoint, and then a number of columns for YES, NO, N/A. Please consider adapting the following format:
an example we find useful is at http://www-3.ibm.com/able/accesssoftware.html . [[Following is (unarchived) response comment from Ian Jacobs: We redesigned the UAAG 1.0 checklist [1] based on earlier comments from you [1]. We don't specify fixed widths for table columns. |
|||||||
Proposal: | |||||||
Resolution: | |||||||
LC-71 | IntroGuide | 2003-03-15 | IntroGuide | Substantive | Active | Leonid Arbouzov | Lofton Henderson |
Title: Collected substantive & editorial comments | |||||||
Description: comment about "General: miscellaneous & other" :
[Entered into form by LH.]
Six substantive and editorial issues, on "QA Framework: Introduction" are included in the document at http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2003/03/qareview20030314.html , which was submitted to QA by XML Schema on 14 Mar 2003: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2003Mar/0079.html . |
|||||||
Proposal: | |||||||
Resolution: | |||||||
LC-72 | OpsGuide | 2003-03-15 | OpsGuide | Substantive | Active | Leonid Arbouzov | Lofton Henderson |
Title: Collected substantive & editorial comments | |||||||
Description: comment about "Overall" :
[Entered into form by LH.]
Thirteen substantive and editorial issues on "QA Framework: Operational Guidelines",
are included in the document at: http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2003/03/qareview20030314.html , which was submitted to QA by XML Schema on 14 Mar 2003: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2003Mar/0079.html |
|||||||
Proposal: | |||||||
Resolution: | |||||||
LC-73 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-15 | SpecGuide | Substantive | Active | Leonid Arbouzov | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: Collected substantive & editorial comments | |||||||
Description: comment about "Overall" :
[Entered into form by LH.]
Nine substantive and editorial issues on "QA Framework: Specification Guidelines",
are included in the document at: http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2003/03/qareview20030314.html , which was submitted to QA by XML Schema on 14 Mar 2003: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2003Mar/0079.html . Extension-group processing plan and subsequent email discussion. Related LC cat-class issues: 11, 46, 48, 61, 73.3, 93, 94. Related LC extensibility issues: 15, 29.5, 35, 37, 38, 52, 73.5, 73.6, 75.4, 81, [97?, ] 100, 101. Related LC applicability/normative-exclusion issues: 26, 28, 73.2, 80. Related LC TA-requirements issues: 13, 14, 29.4, 65, 67, 73.9, 75.9, [106?]. |
|||||||
Proposal: | |||||||
Resolution: | |||||||
LC-74 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-15 | SpecGuide | Substantive | Active | Lofton Henderson | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: Simplify & consolidate the guidelines of SpecGL | |||||||
Description: comment about "Overall" :
If the 14 specification guidelines can be clearly summarized in 6 bullets, as we claim is done in the QA Outreach Kit, http://www.w3.org/2003/Talks/qa-outreach/slide5-0.html , then perhaps the guidelines themselves ought to be consolidated and reduced in number. I believe that most of the checkpoints are appropriate, but perhaps should be repackaged. Six bullets:
I think the first 4 are almost right for guidelines. The later ones don't seem to me to be quite right.
So at best, we would have 7 guidelines. At worst, 9 (if the new GL5 wouldn't stick together, and we couldn't find a new GL6 that was satisfactory). Email comments (20030417), including proposals. Related LC major-restructure issues: 54, 74, 75.2, 75.3, 75.7, 75.8, 102, 104, 105. |
|||||||
Proposal: See email. | |||||||
Resolution: | |||||||
LC-75 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-16 | SpecGuide | Substantive | Active | Patrick Curran | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: Comments on SpecGL Guidelines | |||||||
Description: comment about "Overall" :
Related LC DoV issues: 21, 66, 75.3, 75.5, 84, 90, 95, 77.SG-1. Related LC major-restructure issues: 54, 74, 75.2, 75.3, 75.7, 75.8, 102, 104, 105. Related LC example/use-case issues: 7, 23, 75.1, 77.ET-2, 79, 92, 109. Related LC TA-requirements issues: 13, 14, 29.4, 65, 67, 73.9, 75.9, [106?]. Related LC extensibility issues: 15, 29.5, 35, 37, 38, 52, 73.5, 73.6, 75.4, 81, [97?, ] 100, 101. |
|||||||
Proposal: Restructure guidelines, combining several resulting in a smaller number. | |||||||
Resolution: | |||||||
LC-76 | IntroGuide | 2003-03-19 | IntroGuide | Substantive | Active | Roger Gimson | Lofton Henderson |
Title: Collected substantive & editorial comments | |||||||
Description: comment about "General: miscellaneous & other" :
[Entered into form by LH.]
Four substantive and editorial issues (IN-1, .., IN-4) on "QA Framework: Introduction" are included in the document at http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2003/03/DIWGcomments.html , which was submitted to QA on 14 Mar 2003: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-di-wg/2003Mar/0074.html . Also there are three issues applicable to all Framework, (FR-1, ..), and six general comments to QA (GC-1, .., GC-6). |
|||||||
Proposal: | |||||||
Resolution: | |||||||
LC-77 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-19 | SpecGuide | Substantive | Active | Roger Gimson | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: Collected substantive & editorial comments | |||||||
Description: comment about "Overall" :
Two substantive and editorial issues on "QA Framework: Specification Guidelines",
http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2003/03/DIWGcomments.html , which was submitted by DI WG to QA on 14 Mar 2003: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-di-wg/2003Mar/0074.html. Also there are three issues applicable to all Framework,
and six general comments to QA ( GC-1, .., GC-6). Related LC DoV issues: 21, 66, 75.3, 75.5, 84, 90, 95, 77.SG-1. Related LC example/use-case issues: 7, 23, 75.1, 77.ET-2, 79, 92, 109. |
|||||||
Proposal: | |||||||
Resolution: | |||||||
LC-78 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-19 | SpecGuide | Substantive | Active | David Marston | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: Should provide a disclaimer template | |||||||
Description: comment about "11.3 Provide a conformance disclaimer." :
When I visited the joint XSL/XQ WG session (March 6 in Cambridge), there was quite a bit of discussion about the claims and disclaimers suggested in Guideline 11 of SpecGL. WG members attending wanted to have something more concrete to start with, like a "boilerplate" paragraph or two. In particular, we talked about number of test cases passed as a bad metric for conformance, because it implies that each case has equal weight. The current checkpoints don't call out this practice as warranting discouragement. |
|||||||
Proposal: Include in Ck 11.3, and probably 11.2 as well, a template that editors
can paste into their specs. The template should include sentences
addressing particular good (11.2) or bad (11.3) practices that might
occur, allowing editors to remove irrelevant sentences.
I think that for 11.2, you already know that you intend a template resembling: This [class of product] was tested for conformance to [name of spec] version [N.nn], [Nth] Edition, dated [date], and all errata issued through [date], ... more specs cited same way .... The testing occurred on [date] using [test suite identifier] and [name of product and version] was found to conform at [level] level except for [enumeration of failing tests]. A full report of the parameter settings for the test harness and all results is posted at [URL] for open, public review. For 11.3, the template could look like this: While the test suite provides [hundreds, thousands] of test cases, not all cases should be considered to carry equal weight. A product that passes all the tests may still not conform in some untested area. The W3C hereby states that claims of passage of a certain number of test cases or a certain percentage of the test cases, but not all, are invalid as relative measurements of conformance or worthiness, and that the only valid data that can be derived from such a result is that the product being tested does not pass all the tests. [Optional: More tests may be added to the suite in the future, and existing tests may be changed when errata are discovered. Failing some test cases cannot be interpreted as failing to conform without corroboration.] [Optional: The test suite can be tailored to suit permissible variability in product behavior. The W3C encourages implementers to provide information in their Implementation Conformance Statement that will lead to accurate configuration of the test suite, but holds the test lab responsible for obtaining the information and tailoring the suite accordingly, or else reporting which pieces of information were undetermined and indicating that some test failures may in fact be due to configuration problems.] |
|||||||
Resolution: | |||||||
LC-79 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-19 | SpecGuide | Substantive | Resolved | Lofton Henderson | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: SpecGL fails checkpoints 1.2 and 1.3 | |||||||
Description: comment about "Guideline 1 Define Scope." :
[This is really a comment about the "Introduction" section.]
"Specification Guidelines" (SpecGL) fails its own
Checkpoints 1.2 (priority 2) and 1.3 (priority 3),
by not illustrating its scope with examples and/or use cases, and not
providing usage scenarios.
Alternatives:
While I believe that alternative #1 is the correct alternative, it might be helpful for SpecGL to explain its intentions about self-conformance (p1 or p2 or p3?). I.e., should SpecGL contain a SpecGL conformance claim? Discussed at 20030407 telecon. Resolved (and action item assigned) to add use cases and/or usage scenarios and/or examples to illustrate scope. Related LC example/use-case issues: 7, 23, 75.1, 77.ET-2, 79, 92, 109. |
|||||||
Proposal: Alternative #1. | |||||||
Resolution: Alternative #1. Details tbd. | |||||||
LC-80 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-19 | SpecGuide | Substantive | Active | Lofton Henderson | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: SpecGL should address the topic of CP applicability. | |||||||
Description: comment about "Overall" :
[This comment probably applies to the "Conformance" section.]
It is arguable that some SpecGL checkpoints -- applied to SpecGL itself, or to any other specification for that matter -- might be "not applicable", because of the nature of the specification. For some checkpoints (CP), SpecGL states conditions under which the CP is not applicable. It is unlikely that SpecGL has anticipated all of the circumstances under which a CP might be "not applicable". Email discussion, including proposal. Related LC applicability/normative-exclusion issues: 26, 28, 73.2, 80. |
|||||||
Proposal: In "Conformance" section, address what a specification tester, who is applying SpecGL's ICS, should do if he/she believes that a checkpoint is "not applicable" (n/a), but SpecGL has not indicated that the CP might n/a. | |||||||
Resolution: | |||||||
LC-81 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-19 | SpecGuide | Substantive | Active | Lofton Henderson | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: CP9.6 conformance requirements and rationale may be too narrow. | |||||||
Description: comment about "9.6 Require that implementations ...
alternatives to extensions" :
Checkpoint 9.6 conformance requirements talk about an operating mode under which only strict-conforming content may be produced. I think that this may be too narrow a requirement. Would we consider the intent of the checkpoint to be satisfied if an implementation generated strict-conforming 'alt' content (to use the HTML analogy) to a private extension? In my opinion, a no-extensions mode is the best way to satisfy this CP. But is it the only way? Note. There is some question why someone would include the extension at all, if the 'alt' content is "equivalent". Perhaps it is a way of round-tripping private functions of an implementation, while providing an alternative formulation that other implementations can use. Extension-group processing plan and subsequent email discussion. Related LC extensibility issues: 15, 29.5, 35, 37, 38, 52, 73.5, 73.6, 75.4, 81, [97?, ] 100, 101. |
|||||||
Proposal: 'Alt' mechanisms that contain only strict-conforming content, and achieve equivalent effect, should qualify. | |||||||
Resolution: | |||||||
LC-82 | OpsGuide | 2003-03-19 | OpsGuide | Substantive | Active | Lofton Henderson | Lofton Henderson |
Title: OpsGL fails SpecGL checkpoints 1.2 and 1.3 | |||||||
Description: comment about "Overall" :
[This is really a comment about the "Introduction" section.]
"Operational Guidelines" (OpsGL) fails Checkpoints 1.2 (priority 2) and 1.3 (priority 3) of "Specification Guidelines", by
not illustrating its scope with examples and/or use cases, and not providing usage scenarios.
Alternatives:
While I believe that alternative #1 is the correct alternative, it might be helpful for OpsGL to explain its intentions about conformance (A or AA or AAA?) to SpecGL. I.e., should OpsGL contain a SpecGL conformance claim? |
|||||||
Proposal: Alternative #1. | |||||||
Resolution: | |||||||
LC-83 | OpsGuide | 2003-03-31 | OpsGuide | Substantive | Resolved | Jonathan Marsh | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: Seven levels vs. Three | |||||||
Description: comment about "Overall" :
All specs include seven "levels" of conformance.
However, only three levels are actually public; these are called "priorities".
Ed note. Submitted as SpecGL issue, reclassified as OpsGL, as QAWG believes that the problem originates with the table of CP1.1 of OpsGL. Email discussion , including proposed resolution. Discussed and resolved at 20030428 telecon. See LC-3 for description and resolution. |
|||||||
Proposal: [Originator] Collapse the seven levels into the three
real ones (now called priorities), since these are the basis
of conformance measurement.
[LH] See email. |
|||||||
Resolution: | |||||||
LC-84 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-31 | SpecGuide | Substantive | Resolved | Jonathan Marsh | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: Group dimensions of variability | |||||||
Description: comment about "Overall" :
Guidelines two through nine are grouped as "dimensions
of variability," and referred to as such by themselves and by
other guidelines. If the concept of dimensions of variability is of
this much importance, it should be reflected in the structure of the document.
Email comments (20030417), including proposals. Email comments, including proposal (20030418). Discussed and resolved at 20030421 telecon. Related LC DoV issues: 21, 66, 75.3, 75.5, 84, 90, 95, 77.SG-1. |
|||||||
Proposal: [Originator.] Guidelines two through nine should be grouped, structurally, as "dimensions of variability". [LH] See email. | |||||||
Resolution: This will be addressed with the planned new chapter -- "2. Concepts". With these improvements, restructuring to segregate the DoV guidelines into their own document sections is not thought to be necessary. | |||||||
LC-85 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-31 | SpecGuide | Editorial | Resolved | Jonathan Marsh | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: Self-sufficient guidelines and checkpoints | |||||||
Description: comment about "Overall" :
In general, the language is insufficiently rigorous/precise
for a common use case, and the model may be explained in text rather
than structurally. The problem is that, while many WG members may read
the entire spec, others may be tasked with judging conformance to a particular
guideline, or even a particular checkpoint.
Email comments (20030417), including proposals. Discussed and resolved at 20030418 telecon. |
|||||||
Proposal: [Originator] Insofar as is possible guidelines and checkpoints should contain sufficient definition for local understanding, and pointers to all related items in the document. That is, a reader should be able to enter via any checkpoint, and gather all and only the information needed to understand the checkpoint starting from that entry point. [LH] See email. | |||||||
Resolution: Resolved per proposal in email. Agreed that these are good principles. While it is beyond our resources to completely rewrite the document with these in mind, we will apply them going forward, as we edit and revise SpecGL. (E.g., links to definitions, to concept discussions, etc.) | |||||||
LC-86 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-31 | SpecGuide | Editorial | Resolved | Jonathan Marsh | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: Spelling, grammar, and style | |||||||
Description: comment about "Overall" :
Spell and grammar check. There are a number of problems
with both, which probably do not deserve direct mention. Also,
the style of the prose occasionally changes radically (from a
formal, romance-language-influenced european english to a very
colloquial american style). This can be jarring.
Email comments (20030417), including proposals. Discussed and resolved at 20030418 telecon. |
|||||||
Proposal: [LH] See email. | |||||||
Resolution: MS and LR will make a review for grammar and spelling -- in the final WG-only SpecGL draft preceding the next published version. With our mix of authors, there is not much that we can do about different styles, other than to ensure that everything is grammatically correct. | |||||||
LC-87 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-31 | SpecGuide | Editorial | Resolved | Jonathan Marsh | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: Abbreviations | |||||||
Description: comment about "Overall" :
If abbreviated forms are used to refer to other documents,
these abbreviations ought to also appear in the bibliography.
In general, reference to a document should always be a <bibloc>.
Email comments (20030417), including proposals. Discussed and resolved at 20030418 telecon. |
|||||||
Proposal: [LH] See email. | |||||||
Resolution: We believe that we are doing all references correctly, but see that we have omitted the brackets "[]" in the References section. That will be fixed. LR/MS check these also during grammar/spelling review (issue 86.) | |||||||
LC-88 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-31 | SpecGuide | Editorial | Active | Jonathan Marsh | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: Reformat bullet list | |||||||
Description: comment about "1.3 Provide Usage Scenarios. " : Bullet lists are there to call out important items. An eight-item list should either be shortened or reformatted; it fails as bullet points. | |||||||
Proposal: | |||||||
Resolution: | |||||||
LC-89 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-31 | SpecGuide | Editorial | Resolved | Jonathan Marsh | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: Consolidate glossary and terminology | |||||||
Description: comment about "Introduction" :
Why isn't the glossary in section 1.6, instead of at the end?
Email comments (20030417), including proposals. Discussed and resolved at 20030418 telecon. |
|||||||
Proposal: [Originator] Move the definitions appendix to section 1.6. [LH] See email. | |||||||
Resolution: Resolved per email proposal. It is done both ways in W3C specifications, and QAWG prefers this way for SpecGL. Also make these two changes: change the title of 1.6 from "Terminology" to "Usage of terminology in this document"; and, add this sentence to 2nd paragraph, "When used in this specification, terms have the meanings assigned in 'Definitions' and 'QA Glossary' [QA-GLOSSARY]." (And hyperlink the two references?) | |||||||
LC-90 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-31 | SpecGuide | Editorial | Resolved | Jonathan Marsh | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: Restructure DoV | |||||||
Description: comment about "Introduction" :
If DoV is important enough to occupy a full page in 1.8,
and be referred to without further explanation elsewhere,
it's important enough to restructure so as to identify clearly the membership of DoV.
Wherever dimensions of variability are mentioned in the document, it should be possible
to hyperlink to the appropriate place (which means a briefer discussion, as an
introduction to the collection of guidelines 2-9).
Email comments (20030417), including proposals. Email comments, including proposal (20030418). Discussed and resolved at 20030421 telecon. Related LC DoV issues: 21, 66, 75.3, 75.5, 84, 90, 95, 77.SG-1. |
|||||||
Proposal: [Originator] Drop section 1.8, and restructure. [LH] See email. | |||||||
Resolution: This will be addressed and resolved by the planned new chapter -- "2. Concepts". | |||||||
LC-91 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-31 | SpecGuide | Closed | Active | Jonathan Marsh | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: Complexity of numbering | |||||||
Description: comment about "Overall" :
Guidelines escape the section/technical numbering of the
remainder of the document. Why isn't guideline 1 section 2.1?
And checkpoint 1.2 section 2.1.2? This is going to cause confusion,
when others make reference to the document: if I say 3.2, do I mean a
checkpoint or a section? Section 2 is by far the bulk of the document;
perhaps each guideline ought to be given a section number instead
(guidelines 2 through 15, then, instead of 1 through 14).
Discussed at 20030407 telecon. Closed with resolution to leave numbering scheme as is. Reasons: given that the context is usually clear (or easily made clear by the usual prefix of "guideline" or "checkpoint" [x.y]), the current GL/CP numbers are considered both more convenient and sufficient; the numbering scheme is familiar from WAI specifications and has been successfully used there; and, the proposed numbering scheme would have the undersireable characteristic that every guideline would start with "2." (e.g., 2.8) and every checkpoint would start with "2." (e.g., 2.8.4). The QAWG believes that the GL number should be the most significant component, and believes it is easier to quickly recognize "checkpoint 8.4" than "checkpoint 2.8.4". |
|||||||
Proposal: Find a non-conflicting numbering scheme. | |||||||
Resolution: No change. | |||||||
LC-92 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-31 | SpecGuide | Editorial | Resolved | Jonathan Marsh | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: Examples vs. Illustrations | |||||||
Description: comment about "Guideline 1 Define Scope." :
What's the difference between examples and illustrations?
(Checkpoint 1.2 versus checkpoint 1.4)
Discussed at 20030407 telecon: CP1.2 requires examples of what is in scope; CP 1.4 requires examples of specific functionality, concepts, behavior. Need to make this clearer, perhaps remove 'concepts' from CP 1.4 will help. Alternatives:
Proposed resolution: re-word 1.2 as "Illustrate scope.", reword 1.4 as "Illustrate technical details", and clarify difference further in the ConfReqs, Rationale, and Discussion. Also, examples (use cases) need not be in the specification itself, they can be in companion document(s). Language should change to use "provide" rather than "include", to avoid implication of "within specification". Related LC example/use-case issues: 7, 23, 75.1, 77.ET-2, 79, 92, 109. |
|||||||
Proposal: Re-word 1.2 as "Illustrate scope.", reword 1.4 as "Illustrate technical details", and clarify difference further in the ConfReqs, Rationale, and Discussion. | |||||||
Resolution: As proposed. | |||||||
LC-93 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-31 | SpecGuide | Substantive | Resolved | Jonathan Marsh | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: Classes vs. categories | |||||||
Description: comment about "Guideline 2 Identify what needs to conform and how. " :
The use of categories versus classes of products is altogether unclear.
If categories and classes of products are to be called out, normatively, then these
should have status in the TOC (the list of categories and the list of classes should
both have ids, be targets for hyperlinks, and should have subheadings to identify them visually).
Email comments (20030417), including proposals. Discussed at 20030418 telecon. Discussed and resolved at 20030418 telecon. Rewrite the GL verbiage for clarification. Implementation of the TOC suggestion depends on whether a sub-section on 'class' and 'category' is set up in a new "Ch.2 Concepts". |
|||||||
Proposal: See email. | |||||||
Resolution: The verbiage on classes and categories will be rewritten according to the 4-point proposal in email comments. Implementation of the TOC suggestion depends on whether a sub-section on 'class' and 'category' is set up in a new "Ch.2 Concepts". [LR tentatively has drafting action.] | |||||||
LC-94 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-31 | SpecGuide | Substantive | Resolved | Jonathan Marsh | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: Loophole in Classes and Categories | |||||||
Description: comment about "Guideline 2 Identify what needs to conform and how. " :
The checkpoints based on classes of product and categories are awkward,
because the use of the existing enumeration is REQUIRED but only if applicable.
That is, the use of the existing enumerations is COMPLETELY OPTIONAL.
The language should reflect that it leaves an enormous loophole for spec
authors to ignore the existing lists.
Email comments (20030417), including proposals. Discussed at 20030418 telecon. |
|||||||
Proposal: See email. | |||||||
Resolution: Resolved per proposal in email comments. We can't possibly write SpecGL in such a way as to prevent devious and intentional circumvention. Rewrite lists and verbiage to ensure that our GL2 implementation of the "non-exhaustive" idea is clearly explained -- these represent an enumeration of some of the most common SC and CoP, and you may need to define your own if one of them doesn't appropriately fit your SC or CoP. [LR tentatively has drafting action, as part of the drafting solution to issues 11, 46, 48, 93.] | |||||||
LC-95 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-31 | SpecGuide | Substantive | Active | Jonathan Marsh | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: Why is conformance policy a DoV? | |||||||
Description: comment about "Guideline 3 Specify conformance policy. " :
Why should conformance policy be considered a dimension of variability?
It is potentially partitioned by those dimensions, but does not introduce its
own dimensions.
Email comments, including proposal (20030418). Discussed at 20030421 telecon, and in email thread. Discussed at 20030428 telecon, and further analyzed in another email thread. Resolution postponed -- there are related issues in the "re-org" group, for consolidating various amongst GL3/10, GL11/12, etc. Related previous QAWG issue 95 (which appears more "Postponed" than "Closed"), additional email proposal (20030429), email suggestion (20030429) of additional checkpoint. Related LC DoV issues: 21, 66, 75.3, 75.5, 84, 90, 95, 77.SG-1. |
|||||||
Proposal: See email. | |||||||
Resolution: | |||||||
LC-96 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-31 | SpecGuide | Substantive | Active | Jonathan Marsh | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: Priorities confusing | |||||||
Description: comment about "Guideline 3 Specify conformance policy. " : The priorities here are very strange. Why is justifying the use of a dimension priority one, while establishing a minimum requirement is priority two? | |||||||
Proposal: | |||||||
Resolution: | |||||||
LC-97 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-31 | SpecGuide | Substantive | Resolved | Jonathan Marsh | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: Modules as extension points | |||||||
Description: comment about "Guideline 5 Address the use of modules to divide the technology." :
Unlike G4, which notes that profiles may be a point of extension, G5
does not consider modules to be a point of extension. In the web services
world, "modules" certainly are a point of extension, and so have
rules for defining new modules (just as, in G4, there are assertions
associated with rules for defining new profiles). The document should
recognize this.
Email comments (20030417), including proposal to seek clarification. Discussed (for clarification) at 20030418 telecon, and in subsequent email thread (20030418). There is email discussion of the issue group here, and see also numerous related messages nearby on the same list. Discussed and resolved at 20030428 telecon. During discussion, a key distinction between extension modules and from Rules for Profiles was established -- new profiles are not *extensions* to the specification, but rather different ways to subdivide the (typically) standard functionality of the specification for different conformance targets. Agreed that the problem should be resolved along the lines in LR email proposal -- a combination of 1.) clarification to Originator about how existing checkpoints actually cover this case; and, 2.) some additional clarifying verbiage (to be drafted, for either section 2.3, or the modules GL verbiage, or GL9/extensibility -- tbd). For further context, see also the solution for the profile/module/level issue group. Previous profile/module/level QAWG issues: 73, 74, 75, 76. Related LC profile/module/level issues: 30, 41, 49, 50, 51, 97, 98. Related LC extensibility issues: 15, 29.5, 35, 37, 38, 52, 73.5, 73.6, 75.4, 81, [97?, ] 100, 101. |
|||||||
Proposal: | |||||||
Resolution: A new CP is not thought to be needed. This case -- involving modules and extensions -- is somewhat different than the Rules for Profiles case (where extensions are typically not a factor.) QAWG thinks that CP9.4, CP9.7, CP5.2 cover this adequately, as described in email proposal. Some clarifying explanation will be added. | |||||||
LC-98 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-31 | SpecGuide | Substantive | Resolved | Jonathan Marsh | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: Conformance levels | |||||||
Description: comment about "Guideline 6 Address the use of functional levels to divide the technology." :
Levels are the primary defining mechanism for the QA framework,
but there is only one checkpoint here. There should also be (at least)
a checkpoint to establish that levels create a hierarchy of conformance;
that the more advanced levels include the earlier levels (thus establishing
that there is a minimum level).
There is email discussion of the issue group here, and see also numerous related messages nearby on the same list. Discussed and resolved at 20030428 telecon. That "levels create a hierarchy of conformance" is part of the definition of levels. It was thought unnecessary and redundant to try to bind the definition into a Checkpoint and test requirements. For further context, see also the solution for the profile/module/level issue group. Previous profile/module/level QAWG issues: 73, 74, 75, 76. Related LC profile/module/level issues: 30, 41, 49, 50, 51, 97, 98. |
|||||||
Proposal: | |||||||
Resolution: The suggested checkpoint is considered redundant and unnecessary, because it is part of the definition of "levels", and the terms in SpecGL "...have the meanings assigned in 'Definitions' and 'QA Glossary' [QA-GLOSSARY]." | |||||||
LC-99 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-31 | SpecGuide | Substantive | Resolved | Jonathan Marsh | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: Awkward deprecation requirements | |||||||
Description: comment about "7.3 If deprecation is used, define its relationships..." :
This checkpoint basically demands that if some feature has been deprecated,
possibly because no one can agree on its proper definition, then it must be properly
defined and its interactions fully characterized. It is likely that some things will
be deprecated precisely because they cannot be well and unambiguously characterized;
this checkpoint ensures that as long as these features are part of the main spec, it
can conform at priority two, but as soon as the features are deprecated, it cannot.
See email thread. Discussed at 20030410 telecon. The analysis of the email thread was basically agreed -- it is not necessary to fully define the deprecated functionality, in order to meet the intent of the checkpoint. That intent is that the impact of deprecating the feature on other DoV needs to be discussed. E.g., if the spec is modularized or profiled, how does a feature's deprecation impact those DoV. DM agree to draft clarifying discussion, including at least one "for example", to prevent the confusion. |
|||||||
Proposal: | |||||||
Resolution: The way Originator has understood the checkpoint is not how we intended it. We will redraft the verbiage (incl. "for examples") to clarify and prevent further confusion. [DM draft proposal.] | |||||||
LC-100 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-31 | SpecGuide | Substantive | Active | Jonathan Marsh | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: Don't discourage extensibility | |||||||
Description: comment about "Guideline 9 Allow extensions or NOT!" :
The position of the QA framework WG, that extensions should not be allowed,
is quite clear. This is a political position, and doesn't accomodate those
working on specifications that clearly demand public extensibility.
In the guidelines, describe conformance. Discourage extensibility
elsewhere. We note that these guidelines are, themselves, extensible.
Extension-group processing plan and subsequent email discussion. Related LC extensibility issues: 15, 29.5, 35, 37, 38, 52, 73.5, 73.6, 75.4, 81, [97?, ] 100, 101. Subsequent email discussion, including proposed resolution. |
|||||||
Proposal: | |||||||
Resolution: | |||||||
LC-101 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-31 | SpecGuide | Substantive | Active | Jonathan Marsh | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: Remove Checkpoint 9.6 | |||||||
Description: comment about "9.6 Require that implementations ... alternatives to extensions" :
Extensions may be allowed in order to permit new functionality to be
introduced and tested prior to standardization.
There may not be any alternatives (interoperable or otherwise) to the use of
a particular extension, and in particular, it is completely impossible for
any specification that permits extensions to supply a workaround to the use
of every uninvented extension imaginable. In other words, no specification
that allows extensions can conform at priority three, ever.
Extension-group processing plan and subsequent email discussion. Related LC extensibility issues: 15, 29.5, 35, 37, 38, 52, 73.5, 73.6, 75.4, 81, [97?, ] 100, 101. Subsequent email discussion, including proposed resolution. Extension-group processing plan and subsequent email discussion. |
|||||||
Proposal: Remove this Checkpoint. | |||||||
Resolution: | |||||||
LC-102 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-31 | SpecGuide | Substantive | Active | Jonathan Marsh | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: Consolidate G3 and G10. | |||||||
Description: comment about "Guideline 10 Provide a conformance clause." :
This is G3. Or it should be. Or G3 belongs in Ops, and G10 here.
If a policy has been established, then it has been documented as well; the two
are inextricable, when considering a written specification.
Related LC major-restructure issues: 54, 74, 75.2, 75.3, 75.7, 75.8, 102, 104, 105. |
|||||||
Proposal: Consolidate G3 and G10, or move G3 to Ops. | |||||||
Resolution: | |||||||
LC-103 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-31 | SpecGuide | Substantive | Resolved | Jonathan Marsh | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: Distributed conformance section OK | |||||||
Description: comment about "10.1 Include a conformance section." :
The QA specification does not conform to this checkpoint, which is
priority one. It must be acceptable to place the conformance requirements
in each section of the document. For instance, it must be acceptable to
place the conformance requirements for each checkpoint in a QA document
inside the checkpoint.
Email comments (20030417), including proposals. Discussed and resolved at 20030418 telecon. |
|||||||
Proposal: [Originator] Remove this checkpoint. [LH] See email. | |||||||
Resolution: Originator's recommended "distributed conformance section OK", for the bulk of the conformance requirements, is indeed the intent, but it is obscured by confusing wording. GL3 sorts of things should be in Conformance section. Delete from the ConfReqs statement, "and specific conformance requirements". (Consider further clarification of intent during editing.) | |||||||
LC-104 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-31 | SpecGuide | Substantive | Active | Jonathan Marsh | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: Consolidate G11 with G3/G10 | |||||||
Description: comment about "Guideline 11 Specify how to make conformance claims." :
This is also still part of G3/G10. This section should also discuss how one describes "module conformance" versus "profile
conformance" versus "level conformance" versus "conforming extension", or how these might be combined. Perhaps this information
is in the examples (I haven't looked).
Related LC major-restructure issues: 54, 74, 75.2, 75.3, 75.7, 75.8, 102, 104, 105. |
|||||||
Proposal: Consolidate G11 with G3/G10. Clarify various conformance terminiology. | |||||||
Resolution: | |||||||
LC-105 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-31 | SpecGuide | Substantive | Active | Jonathan Marsh | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: G3, G10, G11, G13 | |||||||
Description: comment about "Guideline 13 Clearly identify conformance requirements." :
The division of the various conformance-related
guidelines into three, ten, eleven, and thirteen is not entirely clear,
nor is it entirely clear that these separate sections do not contradict
one another.
Email comments (20030417), including proposals. Email discussion (20030418). Related LC major-restructure issues: 54, 74, 75.2, 75.3, 75.7, 75.8, 102, 104, 105. |
|||||||
Proposal: [Originator] Rationalize these sections. [LH] See email. | |||||||
Resolution: | |||||||
LC-106 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-31 | SpecGuide | Substantive | Resolved | Jonathan Marsh | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: Section 3.1 - Poor Defn of Normative | |||||||
Description: comment about "Overall" :
"All sentences using a capitalized
keyword from RFC 2119" ... this is a totally
strange definition of how to identify normative text.
Since the definitions of terms are not normative, I am free to
redefine them however I wish, and claim whatever conformance
I care to. Note that the stated priorities for each checkpoint
are not normative.
See email thread, with proposal: SpecGL's definition of normative is okay in glossary, but is more focused than originator assumes (so that it includes only direct conformance statements such as conformance requirements and test assertions). Per 20030410 telecon section 3.1 should be clarified and improved. Discussed again and resolved at 20030414 telecon. Related LC whats-normative issues: 36, 65, 106, 108. Related LC TA-requirements issues: 13, 14, 29.4, 65, 67, 73.9, 75.9, [106?]. |
|||||||
Proposal: [Originator] Develop a rational definition of Normative. | |||||||
Resolution: QAWG confirms that our more focused definition of normative is the one we want in SpecGL. There are some problems in wording of section 3.1, and these will be improved, per 20030410 telecon and 20030414 telecon. The lists in 3.1 will be made comprehensive, and it will include the priorities. Regarding redefining terms with your own definitions, it will be clarified that terms, when used in SpecGL, have the meanings given in glossary. | |||||||
LC-107 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-31 | SpecGuide | Substantive | Closed | Jonathan Marsh | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: Section 3.4 - AAA-terminology useless | |||||||
Description: comment about "Overall" :
The introduction of A[A][A]-conforming as a
synonym for the three priorities is rather absurd,
as is the creation of four levels that will never be used.
A-conforming = priority one = level three;
AA-conforming = priority two = level five;
AAA-conforming = priority three = level seven.
Email comments (20030417), including proposals. Discussed and closed (as SpecGL issue) in email. Email discussion , including proposed resolution (of OpsGL issue). Discussed and resolved at 20030428 telecon. See LC-3 for description and resolution. |
|||||||
Proposal: [Originator] Pick one set of terms and toss the remainder. (N.B.: the association of priorities with levels is a consequence of Ops guideline 1). [LH] See email. | |||||||
Resolution: This will be dealt with by fixing OpsGL, in the resolution of OpsGL issues 3, 60.2, 72.2, 72.3, 83. | |||||||
LC-108 | SpecGuide | 2003-03-31 | SpecGuide | Substantive | Resolved | Jonathan Marsh | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: Definitions | |||||||
Description: comment about "Overall" :
To avoid the problems introduced in section 3.1, change
it to include, as normative, all of sections 1 and 4, which define terms.
Or create a better definition.
See email thread. Discussed and resolved at 20030414 telecon. |
|||||||
Proposal: Disagree, our definition of normative is different, focused on direct connection to conformance requirements. See email. | |||||||
Resolution: As proposed. See also issue resolution. | |||||||
LC-109 | SpecGuide | 2003-04-07 | SpecGuide | Substantive | Resolved | Lofton Henderson | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: Is CP1.3 needed? | |||||||
Description:
Originated during 20030407 telecon, during discussion of issue #92. Discussion: It is unclear what is the difference between CP 1.2 and CP 1.3, according to their respective stated rationales. Is CP 1.3 a superset of CP1.2? Can they be combined? Do we need both? If we need both, then what purposes are the "usage scenarios" of CP1.3 serving, that are distinct from the purposes of CP1.2? Discussed at 20030410 telecon. Resolved that CP1.2 and 1.3 should be combined, and that use case and/or usage scenario should be emphasized as valuable technique in discussion (so that it is somewhat distinguished from "examples"). See previous QAWG (non-LC) issues #72, #84, and #86. Related LC example/use-case issues: 7, 23, 75.1, 77.ET-2, 79, 92, 109. |
|||||||
Proposal: | |||||||
Resolution: Combine CP1.2 and 1.3, and emphasize in verbiage that use case and/or usage scenario are valuable (recommended) techniques. [Tbd...LR to draft.] | |||||||
LC-110 | OpsGuide | 2003-04-16 | OpsGuide | Substantive | Active | Dominique Hazael-Massieux | Lynne Rosenthal |
Title: Collected OpsGL comments from Team. | |||||||
Description: comment about "Overall" :
Ed Note -- DH and KD organized a project review of the QA OpsGL for the W3C Team. This is an informal summary of the comments they got. Note that the presentation was about OpsGL, but most of the comments apply equally to SpecGL.
|
|||||||
Proposal: | |||||||
Resolution: |