Temporary list of issues for QA.
This is a very temporary placeholder document, to capture a list issues
that are open or recently resolved in QA. It is expected that this document
will be superseded as soon as the scheme for issues management is decided and
implemented.
Please send comments about QA issues to www-qa@w3.org.
Introduction
Temporary list of issues for QA. This is a very temporary placeholder
document, to capture a list issues that are open, recently discussed, or
recently resolved in QA. It is a first attempt to ensure that the various
issues from QA email
threads, face-to-face meetings, and (soon) teleconferences, are properly
captured and resolved.
There are certainly issues missing from the list, mostly (probably) from
the email threads. These can be identified and included later. A lot of the
issues are "thinly" documented, and inadequately linked to supporting
materials. This can be taken care of later as well. The immediate goal is
to start to record them.
QA Issues
- Issue: How should QA Issues be managed and tracked? This was discussed
at Brussels
f2f, 11/2001, without clear resolution. Proposal (Henderson &
Gavrylyuk): Maintain them in a simple XML grammar that can be
XSLT-transformed into tabular or other document format. Alternative
(Henderson): SVG has an interesting method, that seems to be based on a
simple plain text master document, http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/Group/issues.txt,
which has very little prose text and relies mainly on references to the
mail archive. Alternative(s): other? Resolution: open.
- Issue: What do we want for an issue number scheme? Alternatives: no
number, use a mnemonic name, such as "issue-number-scheme"; or, start
with 001 and continue, 002, 003, ...(SVG does this); or, year and number
2001-1, 2001-2, ... Resolution: open.
- Issue: Is it okay to mix document (Framework) issues with others?
Some talk at Brussels that we should separate them. Given that much of
our initial work will take place in the context of producing the
Framework documents, it might not always be easy to separate issues (doc
versus "substance"). Classifying or categorizing will increase
management complexity. Resolution: open.
- Issue: How should Action Items (AI) be managed and tracked? We need
to keep the open AI visible, and also to document the when and how of
closing AIs. No firm proposals, but some options. Option: Karl DuBost
is working on tracking open items in an in-design "Agenda" addition to a
re-organized QA Web site (unclear whether this tracks all AI, including
competion and closure). Option: closure and completion is tracked in
minutes of f2f and teleconferences. Option: both the open-AI list and
documentation of individual closures and completions is tracked only in
minutes. Option: something like the method of SVG (see the issue about
"Issue tracking"). Resolution: open.
- Issue: How should the QA Framework documents be partitioned? Input to
Brussels was single document. It was partitioned at Brussels into: Intro
& Process Guidelines; Operational Guidelines; Spec Guidelines;
Technical Guidelines. Working on the first two pieces, Henderson &
Gavrylyuk propose to move the Process Guidelines from "Intro" to
"Operational" document. See qaframe-intro-1202.html.
Resolution: closed at Brussels, re-opened after.
- Issue: If the proposed document partition of qaframe-intro-1202 is
approved, then what should be the schedule for First Public Working Draft
(FPWD) of the first two parts? At Brussels, the decision was:
mid-December and early-January. Since the substantive Process guidelines
have moved into the "Operational" part (now "Process & Operational
Guidelines"), should we still put out FPWD "Intro" by itself? Is it
substantial and interesting enough, and can it stand alone without at
least one other part (notice proposed linkage between Intro and the other
parts). Resolution: open.
- Issue: Names for the (current four) QA Framework documents? See
proposed names in qaframe-intro-1202.html, section 1.1. Resolution:
open.
- Issue: What format for the Framework documents? Agreement at
Brussels, Guidelines and verifiable checkpoints, similar to the WAI
standards. "Examples & Techniques" documents associated with the
guidelines documents, to handle per-WG and taxonomy-specific details,
examples, and implementations (similar to WAI "Techniques"). Resolution:
closed.
- Issue: Should there be modifications to the W3C Process Document, to
(for example) require TS production before exit CR? Discussed at
Brussels. The general feeling was "no", because it's not needed. For
example, WAI and I18N are effective without any such. The requirement of
two interoperable implementations strongly implies at least BE sort of
test materials. The QA Framework Guidelines will require it. Etc.
Resolution: No (not to be pursued now, at least).
- Issue: Should there be modifications to the W3C Process Document, to
require that Activity statements and/or WG Charters address QA
deliverables? Discussed at Brussels. General feeling seemed to be that
it was unnecessary. The QA Framework will require it. The Activity
Statements and Charters get AC review and approval. This will suffice to
ensure that QA deliverables are properly addressed. Resolution: No.
- Issue: Where should test suites reside? The draft Framework input to
Brussels has a Guideline that says they should ultimately live in the
responsible W3C WG. This has since been questioned. Resolution:
open.
- Issue: Where should conformance test materials reside "long term"?
After a WG disbands, who is responsible for managing test materials?
Issue was mentioned at Brussels. No clear resolution. Resolution:
open.
- Issue: When, how, and for what Working Group will QA perform a "spec
review"? QA reviews of WG specs is one of our documented QAWG
deliverables. The issue was mentioned at Brussels. No proposals yet.
Resolution: Open.
- Issue: How will QA guidelines, especially the "Specification
Guidelines", relate to publication and style rules (Comm team)? Raised
at Brussels, needs to be pursued and defined. Resolution: open.
- Issue: How will QAWG interact with WAI and I18N WGs, and how will QA
guidelines interact with WAI and I18N guidelines? Raised in email and at
Brussels. The Framework document input to Brussels stipulates certain
levels of WAI conformance in a WGs test materials. But the issue hasn't
been carefully discussed yet. Resolution: open.
- Issue: Is inter-standard or multi-standard interoperability within the
QA scope? Issue raised in email thread (DM, 2001-11-07). Resolution:
open.
- Issue: How should Education & Outreach be carried out,
specifically what sort of presence should QA have at conferences? Issue
raised at Brussels. The desireability is recognized, but the realization
is not determined. Resolution: open.
- Issue: Should QA (e.g., Framework) address the topic of valid
conformance claims, especially when W3C test materials are involved? It
is fairly well accepted that W3C does not intend to get into the
certification business. There is email thread and Brussels discussion
about related issues: accreditation of third party certifiers; use (or
abuse) and claims of conformance related to W3C test materials; logos and
branding (such as XHTML, WCAG1.0, etc). There are probably several
closely related issues to be separated here. Resolution: open.